Student engagement with an ePortfolio : a case study of pre-service education students

The emergence of ePortfolios is relatively recent in the university sector as a way to engage students in their learning and assessment, and to produce records of their accomplishments. An ePortfolio is an online tool that students can utilise to record, catalogue, retrieve and present reflections and artefacts that support and demonstrate the development of graduate students’ capabilities and professional standards across university courses. The ePortfolio is therefore considered as both process and product. Although ePortfolios show promise as a useful tool and their uptake has grown, they are not yet a mainstream higher education technology. To date, the emphasis has been on investigating their potential to support the multiple purposes of learning, assessment and employability, but less is known about whether and how students engage with ePortfolios in the university setting. This thesis investigates student engagement with an ePortfolio in one university. As the educational designer for the ePortfolio project at the University, I was uniquely positioned as a researching professional to undertake an inquiry into whether students were engaging with the ePortfolio. The participants in this study were a cohort (defined by enrolment in a unit of study) of second and third year education students (n=105) enrolled in a four year Bachelor of Education degree. The students were introduced to the ePortfolio in an introductory lecture and a hands-on workshop in a computer laboratory. They were subsequently required to complete a compulsory assessment task – a critical reflection - using the ePortfolio. Following that, engagement with the ePortfolio was voluntary. A single case study approach arising from an interpretivist paradigm directed the methodological approach and research design for this study. The study investigated the participants’ own accounts of their experiences with the ePortfolio, including how and when they engaged with the ePortfolio and the factors that impacted on their engagement. Data collection methods consisted of an attitude survey, student interviews, document collection, a researcher reflective journal and researcher observations. The findings of the study show that, while the students were encouraged to use the ePortfolio as a learning and employability tool, most students ultimately chose to disengage after completing the assessment task. Only six of the forty-five students (13%) who completed the research survey had used the ePortfolio in a sustained manner. The data obtained from the students during this research has provided insight into reasons why they disengaged from the ePortfolio. The findings add to the understandings and descriptions of student engagement with technology, and more broadly, advance the understanding of ePortfolios. These findings also contribute to the interdisciplinary field of technology implementation. There are three key outcomes from this study, a model of student engagement with technology, a set of criteria for the design of an ePortfolio, and a set of recommendations for effective practice for those implementing ePortfolios. The first, the Model of Student Engagement with Technology (MSET) (Version 2) explored student engagement with technology by highlighting key engagement decision points for students The model was initially conceptualised by building on work of previous research (Version 1), however, following data analysis a new model emerged, MSET (Version 2). The engagement decision points were identified as: • Prior Knowledge and Experience, leading to imagined usefulness and imagined ease of use; • Initial Supported Engagement, leading to supported experience of usefulness and supported ease of use; • Initial Independent Engagement, leading to actual experience of independent usefulness and actual ease of use; and • Ongoing Independent Engagement, leading to ongoing experience of usefulness and ongoing ease of use. The Model of Student Engagement with Technology (MSET) goes beyond numerical figures of usage to demonstrate student engagement with an ePortfolio. The explanatory power of the model is based on the identification of the types of decisions that students make and when they make them during the engagement process. This model presents a greater depth of understanding student engagement than was previously available and has implications for the direction and timing of future implementation, and academic and student development activities. The second key outcome from this study is a set of criteria for the re-conceptualisation of the University ePortfolio. The knowledge gained from this research has resulted in a new set of design criteria that focus on the student actions of writing reflections and adding artefacts. The process of using the ePortfolio is reconceptualised in terms of privileging student learning over administrative compliance. The focus of the ePortfolio is that the writing of critical reflections is the key function, not the selection of capabilities. The third key outcome from this research consists of five recommendations for university practice that have arisen from this study. They are that, sustainable implementation is more often achieved through small steps building on one another; that a clear definition of the purpose of an ePortfolio is crucial for students and staff; that ePortfolio pedagogy should be the driving force not the technology; that the merit of the ePortfolio is fostered in students and staff; and finally, that supporting delayed task performance is crucial. Students do not adopt an ePortfolio just because it is provided. While students must accept responsibility for their own engagement with the ePortfolio, the institution has to accept responsibility for providing the environment, and technical and pedagogical support to foster engagement. Ultimately, an ePortfolio should be considered as a joint venture between student and institution where strong returns on investment can be realised by both. It is acknowledged that the current implementation strategies for the ePortfolio are just the beginning of a much longer process. The real rewards for students, academics and the university lie in the future.

Library and information science education 2.0: guiding principles and models of best practice. Interview with Sue Reynolds.

In 2005, Stephen Abram, vice president of Innovation at SirsiDynix, challenged library and information science (LIS) professionals to start becoming “librarian 2.0.” In the last few years, discussion and debate about the “core competencies” needed by librarian 2.0 have appeared in the “biblioblogosphere” (blogs written by LIS professionals). However, beyond these informal blog discussions few systematic and empirically based studies have taken place. A project funded by the Australian Learning and Teaching Council fills this gap. The project identifies the key skills, knowledge, and attributes required by “librarian 2.0.” Eighty-one members of the Australian LIS profession participated in a series of focus groups. Eight themes emerged as being critical to “librarian 2.0”: technology, communication, teamwork, user focus, business savvy, evidence based practice, learning and education, and personal traits. Guided by these findings interviews with 36 LIS educators explored the current approaches used within contemporary LIS education to prepare graduates to become “librarian 2.0”. This video presents an example of ‘great practice’ in current LIS educative practice in helping to foster web 2.0 professionals.

Library and information science education 2.0 : guiding principles and models of best practice. Interview with Bob Pymm.

In 2005, Stephen Abram, vice president of Innovation at SirsiDynix, challenged library and information science (LIS) professionals to start becoming “librarian 2.0.” In the last few years, discussion and debate about the “core competencies” needed by librarian 2.0 have appeared in the “biblioblogosphere” (blogs written by LIS professionals). However, beyond these informal blog discussions few systematic and empirically based studies have taken place. A project funded by the Australian Learning and Teaching Council fills this gap. The project identifies the key skills, knowledge, and attributes required by “librarian 2.0.” Eighty-one members of the Australian LIS profession participated in a series of focus groups. Eight themes emerged as being critical to “librarian 2.0”: technology, communication, teamwork, user focus, business savvy, evidence based practice, learning and education, and personal traits. Guided by these findings interviews with 36 LIS educators explored the current approaches used within contemporary LIS education to prepare graduates to become “librarian 2.0”. This video presents an example of ‘great practice’ in current LIS education as it strives to foster web 2.0 professionals.

Library and information science education 2.0 : guiding principles and models of best practice. Interview with Jake Wallis.

In 2005, Stephen Abram, vice president of Innovation at SirsiDynix, challenged library and information science (LIS) professionals to start becoming “librarian 2.0.” In the last few years, discussion and debate about the “core competencies” needed by librarian 2.0 have appeared in the “biblioblogosphere” (blogs written by LIS professionals). However, beyond these informal blog discussions few systematic and empirically based studies have taken place. A project funded by the Australian Learning and Teaching Council fills this gap. The project identifies the key skills, knowledge, and attributes required by “librarian 2.0.” Eighty-one members of the Australian LIS profession participated in a series of focus groups. Eight themes emerged as being critical to “librarian 2.0”: technology, communication, teamwork, user focus, business savvy, evidence based practice, learning and education, and personal traits. Guided by these findings interviews with 36 LIS educators explored the current approaches used within contemporary LIS education to prepare graduates to become “librarian 2.0”. This video presents an example of ‘great practice’ in current LIS education as it strives to foster web 2.0 professionals.

Library and information science education 2.0 : guiding principles and models of best practice. Interview with Lyn Hay.

In 2005, Stephen Abram, vice president of Innovation at SirsiDynix, challenged library and information science (LIS) professionals to start becoming “librarian 2.0.” In the last few years, discussion and debate about the “core competencies” needed by librarian 2.0 have appeared in the “biblioblogosphere” (blogs written by LIS professionals). However, beyond these informal blog discussions few systematic and empirically based studies have taken place. A project funded by the Australian Learning and Teaching Council fills this gap. The project identifies the key skills, knowledge, and attributes required by “librarian 2.0.” Eighty-one members of the Australian LIS profession participated in a series of focus groups. Eight themes emerged as being critical to “librarian 2.0”: technology, communication, teamwork, user focus, business savvy, evidence based practice, learning and education, and personal traits. Guided by these findings interviews with 36 LIS educators explored the current approaches used within contemporary LIS education to prepare graduates to become “librarian 2.0”. This video presents an example of ‘great practice’ in current LIS education as it strives to foster web 2.0 professionals.

Library and information science education 2.0 : guiding principles and models of best practice. Interview with Roy Crotty.

In 2005, Stephen Abram, vice president of Innovation at SirsiDynix, challenged library and information science (LIS) professionals to start becoming “librarian 2.0.” In the last few years, discussion and debate about the “core competencies” needed by librarian 2.0 have appeared in the “biblioblogosphere” (blogs written by LIS professionals). However, beyond these informal blog discussions few systematic and empirically based studies have taken place. A project funded by the Australian Learning and Teaching Council fills this gap. The project identifies the key skills, knowledge, and attributes required by “librarian 2.0.” Eighty-one members of the Australian LIS profession participated in a series of focus groups. Eight themes emerged as being critical to “librarian 2.0”: technology, communication, teamwork, user focus, business savvy, evidence based practice, learning and education, and personal traits. Guided by these findings interviews with 36 LIS educators explored the current approaches used within contemporary LIS education to prepare graduates to become “librarian 2.0”. This video presents an example of ‘great practice’ in current LIS education as it strives to foster web 2.0 professionals.

Library and information science education 2.0 : guiding principles and models of best practice. Interview with Mary Anne Kennan.

In 2005, Stephen Abram, vice president of Innovation at SirsiDynix, challenged library and information science (LIS) professionals to start becoming “librarian 2.0.” In the last few years, discussion and debate about the “core competencies” needed by librarian 2.0 have appeared in the “biblioblogosphere” (blogs written by LIS professionals). However, beyond these informal blog discussions few systematic and empirically based studies have taken place. A project funded by the Australian Learning and Teaching Council fills this gap. The project identifies the key skills, knowledge, and attributes required by “librarian 2.0.” Eighty-one members of the Australian LIS profession participated in a series of focus groups. Eight themes emerged as being critical to “librarian 2.0”: technology, communication, teamwork, user focus, business savvy, evidence based practice, learning and education, and personal traits. Guided by these findings interviews with 36 LIS educators explored the current approaches used within contemporary LIS education to prepare graduates to become “librarian 2.0”. This video presents an example of ‘great practice’ in current LIS education as it strives to foster web 2.0 professionals.

Library and information science education 2.0 : guiding principles and models of best practice. Interview with Huan Vo-Tran.

In 2005, Stephen Abram, vice president of Innovation at SirsiDynix, challenged library and information science (LIS) professionals to start becoming “librarian 2.0.” In the last few years, discussion and debate about the “core competencies” needed by librarian 2.0 have appeared in the “biblioblogosphere” (blogs written by LIS professionals). However, beyond these informal blog discussions few systematic and empirically based studies have taken place. A project funded by the Australian Learning and Teaching Council fills this gap. The project identifies the key skills, knowledge, and attributes required by “librarian 2.0.” Eighty-one members of the Australian LIS profession participated in a series of focus groups. Eight themes emerged as being critical to “librarian 2.0”: technology, communication, teamwork, user focus, business savvy, evidence based practice, learning and education, and personal traits. Guided by these findings interviews with 36 LIS educators explored the current approaches used within contemporary LIS education to prepare graduates to become “librarian 2.0”. This video presents an example of ‘great practice’ in current LIS education as it strives to foster web 2.0 professionals.

Library and information science education 2.0 : guiding principles and models of best practice ALTC Fellowship Report

This ALTC Teaching Fellowship aimed to establish Guiding Principles for Library and Information Science Education 2.0. The aim was achieved by (i) identifying the current and anticipated skills and knowledge required by successful library and information science (LIS) professionals in the age of web 2.0 (and beyond), (ii) establishing the current state of LIS education in Australia in supporting the development of librarian 2.0, and in doing so, identify models of best practice. The fellowship has contributed to curriculum renewal in the LIS profession. It has helped to ensure that LIS education in Australia continues to meet the changing skills and knowledge requirements of the profession it supports. It has also provided a vehicle through which LIS professionals and LIS educators may find opportunities for greater collaboration and more open communication. This will help bridge the gap between LIS theory and practice and will foster more authentic engagement between LIS education and other parts of the LIS industry in the education of the next generation of professionals. Through this fellowship the LIS discipline has become a role model for other disciplines who will be facing similar issues in the coming years. Eighty-one members of the Australian LIS profession participated in a series of focus groups exploring the current and anticipated skills and knowledge needed by the LIS professional in the web 2.0 world and beyond. Whilst each focus group tended to draw on specific themes of interest to that particular group of people, there was a great deal of common ground. Eight key themes emerged: technology, learning and education, research or evidence-based practice, communication, collaboration and team work, user focus, business savvy and personal traits. It was acknowledged that the need for successful LIS professionals to possess transferable skills and interpersonal attributes was not new. It was noted however that the speed with which things are changing in the web 2.0 world was having a significant impact and that this faster pace is placing a new and unexpected emphasis on the transferable skills and knowledge. It was also acknowledged that all librarians need to possess these skills, knowledge and attributes and not just the one or two role models who lead the way. The most interesting finding however was that web 2.0, library 2.0 and librarian 2.0 represented a ‘watershed’ for the LIS profession. Almost all the focus groups spoke about how they are seeing and experiencing a culture change in the profession. Librarian 2.0 requires a ‘different mindset or attitude’. The Levels of Perspective model by Daniel Kim provides one lens by which to view this finding. The focus group findings suggest that we are witnessing a re-awaking of the Australian LIS profession as it begins to move towards the higher levels of Kim’s model (ie mental models, vision). Thirty-six LIS educators participated in telephone interviews aimed at exploring the current state of LIS education in supporting the development of librarian 2.0. Skills and knowledge of LIS professionals in a web 2.0 world that were identified and discussed by the LIS educators mirrored those highlighted in the focus group discussions with LIS professionals. Similarly it was noted that librarian 2.0 needed a focus less on skills and knowledge and more on attitude. However, whilst LIS professionals felt that there was a paradigm shift within the profession. LIS educators did not speak with one voice on this matter with quite a number of the educators suggesting that this might be ‘overstating it a bit’. This study provides evidence for “disparate viewpoints” (Hallam, 2007) between LIS educators and LIS professionals that can have a significant implications for the future of not just LIS professional education specifically but for the profession generally. Library and information science education 2.0: guiding principles and models of best practice 1 Inviting the LIS academics to discuss how their teaching and learning activities support the development of librarian 2.0 was a core part of the interviews conducted. The strategies used and the challenges faced by LIS educators in developing their teaching and learning approaches to support the formation of librarian 2.0 are identified and discussed. A core part of the fellowship was the identification of best practice examples on how LIS educators were developing librarian 2.0. Twelve best practice examples were identified. Each educator was recorded discussing his or her approach to teaching and learning. Videos of these interviews are available via the Fellowship blog at .The LIS educators involved in making the videos felt uncomfortable with the term ‘best practice’. Many acknowledged that there simply seeking to do the best by their students and that there was always room for improvement. For this reason these videos are offered as examples of “great practice”. The videos are a tool for other educators to use, regardless of discipline, in developing their teaching and learning approaches to supporting web 2.0 professionals. It has been argued that the main purpose of professional education is transformation (Dall’ Alba, 2009; Dall’Alba & Barnacle, 2007). As such professional education should focus not just on skills and knowledge acquisition but also on helping students to develop ways of being the professionals in question (ie LIS professionals, teachers, lawyers, engineers).The aim of this fellowship was to establish Guidelines for Library and Information Science Education 2.0 it has however become apparent that at this point in time it is not yet possible to fulfil this aim. The fellowship has clearly identified skills and knowledge needed by the LIS professional in web 2.0 world (and beyond). It has also identified examples of ‘great practice’ by LIS educators as they endeavour to develop LIS professionals who will be successful in a web 20 world. The fellowship however has also shown that the LIS profession is currently undergoing significant attitudinal and conceptual change. Consequently, before a philosophy of LIS education 2.0 can be expressed, the Australian LIS profession must first explore and articulate what it means to be an LIS professional in the 21st century (ie a world of web 2.0 and beyond). In short, the LIS profession in Australia must take stock not of “what we know and can do” but on “who we are becoming” (Dall’Alba, 2009, p 34).

A framework for the education of the information professions in Australia.

In recent years there has been considerable discussion afforded to the challenges facing the future of library and information science (LIS) education in Australia. This paper outlines a twelve-month project funded by the Australian Learning and Teaching Council that was undertaken by eleven institutions representing university and vocational LIS education in Australia. The project established a Framework for the Education of the Information Professions in Australia that provides a set of strategic recommendations that will inform future directions of Australian LIS education. This national project represented a bold move within Australian LIS education, and provided a unique opportunity for LIS educators across Australia to collectively unite in order to ‘future-proof’ education for future generations of LIS professionals.

Retention and graduation of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander students in initial teacher education : a review of the literature

While the need to increase numbers of Indigenous teachers has been highlighted for many years, Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander teachers are still significantly underrepresented in Australia making up less that 1% of teachers in schools. Nationally, little has changed since the 1980s when Hughes and Wilmot (1992) called for ‘1000 Indigenous teachers by 1990’. This paper reports on an initial literature review of teacher education as related to the preparation of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islanders. Alongside the scholarly literature, the review to date includes analysis of over twenty policy documents and government reports as well as web-based descriptions of historical and current models of Indigenous teacher education including both mainstream Education programs and cohort-based and community models. While the literature provides examples of successful models of Indigenous teacher education it also illuminates the longstanding and interrelated factors that continue to impact on the success or failure of teacher education for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islanders

Higher degree research at Australian Universities : Responding to diversity in engineering and information technology

BACKGROUND There is increasing enrolment of international students in the Engineering and Information Technology disciplines and anecdotal evidence of a need for additional understanding and support for these students and their supervisors due to differences both in academic and social cultures. While there is a growing literature on supervisory styles and guidelines on effective supervision, there is little on discipline-specific, cross-cultural supervision responding to the growing diversity. In this paper, we report findings from a study of Engineering and Information technology Higher Degree Research (HDR)students and supervision in three Australian universities. PURPOSE The aim was to assess perceptions of students and supervisors of factors influencing success that are particular to international or culturally and linguistically diverse (CaLD) HDR students in Engineering and Information technology. DESIGN/METHOD Online survey and qualitative data was collected from international and CaLD HDR students and supervisors at the three universities. Bayesian network analysis, inferential statistics, and qualitative analysis provided the main findings. RESULTS Survey results indicate that both students and supervisors are positive about their experiences, and do not see language or culture as particularly problematic. The survey results also reveal strong consistency between the perceptions of students and supervisors on most factors influencing success. Qualitative analysis of critical supervision incidents has provided rich data that could help improve support services. CONCLUSIONS In contrast with anecdotal evidence, HDR completion data from the three universities reveal that international students, on average, complete in shorter time periods than domestic students. The analysis suggests that success is linked to a complex set of factors involving the student, supervision, the institution and broader community.

Education for sustainability : a case study of pre-service primary teachers' knowledge and efficacy

This study investigated the relationships between knowledge and efficacy for teaching sustainability in a sample of 266 pre-service primary teachers at a large, metropolitan university in Australia. A survey gathered information about the participant’s attitudes and self-efficacy for education for sustainability, along with their perceived and actual knowledge of environmental sustainability issues. The participants typically believed they were confident in their abilities to engage with education for sustainability with self-efficacy increasing with increased levels of perceived knowledge. However no relationship was found between perceived knowledge and actual knowledge which suggests that the participants either do not feel constrained by their lack of knowledge, or are perhaps unaware of their actual knowledge of sustainability issues. This lack of relationship may have implications for the development of pedagogical content knowledge with pre-service teachers potentially developing shallow, tokenistic approaches to Education for Sustainability.