1. Enhancing Pre-service Teachers’ Reflective Practice via Technology Competencies and ePortfolio Development Marilynn Davis, Ed.D Deborah Waggett, Ph.D SITE Conference March 20, 2006

2. Subtitle Two Professional Development Coordinators learn about the process of ePortfolio development, support structures, the products that result, and the necessity of faculty buy in

3. A Comparison of Contexts Lyndon State College  Elementary Education majors  All sophomores create course ePortfolios  All juniors create working licensure ePortfolios  PD Coordinator- instructor for both courses  2nd year of project- 5/15 seniors created ePortfolios on their own Castleton State College  Physical Education majors create both course and licensure ePortfolios  Elem. & Sec. Ed- optional  PD Coordinator=tech support  2nd year of project- 12/27 seniors created ePortfolios

4. Student Work/Data Lyndon State College  Six Elementary Education junior-level licensure ePortfolios  Entry 2: Understanding Student Learning  Entry 5: Colleagueship and Advocacy Castleton State College  Four Physical Education licensure ePortfolios  Entry 1: Teaching Episodes  Entry 2: Understanding Student Learning  Entry 6: Self-Reflection and Vision (+philosophy statement) All entries addressed state-level requirements

5. Tool Levels of Reflection  Technical-  Description of instruction from teacher perspective.  Effective and efficient management of the lesson.  Contextual  Description of multiple classroom issues  Discussion includes student and faculty perspectives  Critical  Discussion includes teacher/student/community/administrative perspectives  Connections are made to concepts related to social justice, morals, ethics, and caring. From The Johns Hopkins University Digital Portfolio and Guide

6. Tool Reflection Cycle Adapted from the Administrator Appraisal Systems Institute Source: http://www.uncg.edu/%7Ebblevin/eportfolio/eportfoliohandbook.pdf

7. Process Lyndon State College  Juniors expected to use tools to support reflective practice  Other faculty introduced to tools to guide the students who they supervised Castleton State College  Faculty presented with tools to facilitate reflective practice.

8. Findings RQ1 : Does the depth and quality of reflection change with the introduction of the Levels of Reflection tool?  LSC students relied heavily (62%) on the Levels of Reflection tool  Concentrated focus on reflective writing early in the semester  Allowed for the exploration of issues with a critical lens that The Reflection Cycle does not allow  Students wrote more in depth responses  CSC students responded to the Levels of Reflection 44% of the time.  Technical writing: re-creation of a instructional strategies used and how well a student could complete a skill or state a rule.  Contextual writing most commonly referred to the enjoyment of the lesson  Students at both schools struggled to attain a critical level of reflection.

9. Findings RQ2: Does The Reflection Cycle support and enhance the process of reflecting on artifacts expected in course and licensure portfolios?  LSC students were less likely (37%) to use the Reflection Cycle  Juniors had no opportunities to apply the Reflection Cycle until the second half of the semester.  Students were not attentive to the specific questions: Appraise (10%) and Transform (5%)  Neither Entry 2 nor Entry 5 prompt specifically for transformational writing.  CSC students were more likely to use the Reflection Cycle (55%)  Analyze: included Why? or How?, not both  Appraisal: included the importance of learning sports or social skills without connection to goals or standards  Transformational writing most often appeared in Entry 6: Self- Reflection and Vision, which prompts students to discuss their strengths, areas for growth, and a plan for improvement

10. Findings RQ3: Do the different tools used to support reflective writing in the ePortfolio influence reflection differently?  Yes!  The two tools complimented each other through the contextual aspects of reflective writing to appraisal of teaching practices

11. Conclusions  Quantitative data tells an insufficient story  Preservice teachers spend more time, write lengthier pieces, feel empowered to participate in their own learning.  Tools provided a concrete method to conceptualize experiences  Tools also supported the need to improve future teaching, to continuously develop goals, and to push our teachers and students towards social change.

12. Recommendations:Next steps  Use knowledge of faculty and student attitudes to further finesse approach to integrating technology into teacher education  Ultimately, preservice teachers will transfer technology and reflective writing skills to K-12 students  As a result K-12 students will be able to view reflection as necessary and healthy and writing as an effective tool to develop, revise, and appraise personal and professional goals

13. Hyperlink to Brief Paper: Enhancing Pre-service Teachers’ Reflective Practice via Technology Competencies and ePortfolio Development http://www.lsc.vsc.edu/faculty/mxd02140/SITE2006 BriefPaper.html