ePortfolios & Faculty Development: Charting the Impact on Teaching, Learning & Campus Culture Linda Anstendig Samantha Egan Sarah Burns-Feyl Beth Gordon Klingner Jim Stenerson July 27, 2011

I.Teaching Circles II.Best Practices II.Spring Pilots a. Student Life b.Career Services c.Assessment III.ePortfolios for Tenure and Promotion IV.Faculty Resources Agenda

Teaching Circles Student Life Pilot Assessment Pilot Career Services Pilot One-day events Faculty Outreach Tenure and Promotion

Teaching Circles Approximately 40 faculty participants Topics include: basic technical skills, ePortfolio assignments, ePortfolio rubrics Post teaching circle : survey, follow up meeting, classroom demonstrations for students Future teaching circles: increase technical skill building, include more student perspectives

Best Practices of Teaching Circle Participants Hillary Knepper, Assistant Professor, Public Administration –ePortfolio assignments –Program-wide study group –MPA Student Association group Andriy Danylenko, Assistant Professor of Russian and Slavic Linguistics –ePortfolio assignments –Developing a faculty ePortfolio

Teaching Circle Participant Portfolio

Pace’s Spring 2011 Pilots Student Leadership Pilot: ⁻Students developed their Extracurricular/Co-curricular Activities pages, and blogged about their development as a leaders ⁻Student Life Office expanded pilot to summer Orientation Leaders Career Services Pilot: -Students interns blogged about their experiences and posted relevant artifacts -Faculty advisors reviewed the blog to track student progress and grant credit -Gathered data from employer surveys ePortfolio Assessment Pilot: -Evaluated student portfolios for evidence of three student learning outcomes: Written Communication, Analysis, and Information Literacy/Research Skills

Student Leader Portfolio

Career Services Data Other: samples of work; being able to search and find all the candidates at Pace Other: link to linkedIn page; experience.

Career Services Data

Assessment Pilot Data The results of the pilot were mixed: valuable information about Core outcomes was gained, but only 72 student ePortfolios out of the 176 reviewed could be accessed or had the quality of work that could be reviewed using the rubrics. When reviewers’ grades and comments were compiled, student competency in the written communication and information literacy outcomes was fair-to-good, and competency in analysis was only fair.

ExcellentGoodFairPoor Content and Development Ideas are interesting and insightful; clear sense of audience is demonstrated. Clear focus is emphasized throughout essay. Ideas are developed with significant supporting evidence. Ideas are interesting, but not always insightful or fully developed; sense of audience is demonstrated. Focus is clear though may wander at points in the essay. Appropriate evidence is used, but ideas may need more support. Ideas may be obvious and not fully engage the audience. Focus may be unclear and not sustained throughout the essay. Ideas are not sufficiently developed with evidence. Lack of coherent ideas with little sense of audience demonstrated. Focus is confusing and not easily identified. Ideas are underdeveloped and statements are unsupported, repetitive or irrelevant. Organization Clearly arranged ideas in logical order, with effective introduction and conclusion. Paragraphs are coherent, with clear transitions. Overall organizational pattern is shown, with good introduction and conclusion. Most paragraphs are coherent, but some may be out of sequence; transitions adequate, but may be mechanical. Organization is not always clear; introduction and/or conclusion are general or misleading. Paragraph coherence is not consistent; paragraph breaks may be arbitrary, and transitions may be weak. No clear organizational pattern is shown; introduction and conclusion are inadequate Paragraphs are incoherent; transitions are missing or inadequate. Style Sentences are clear, varied and well constructed. Word choices are precise, vivid, and appropriate to the writing task. Most sentences are clear and well constructed. Word choice is generally appropriate. Sentences may be choppy, or repetitive, with some structural errors. Word choice may be imprecise, and some language may be inappropriate. Sentence structure is inaccurate, confusing, or awkward. Word choice errors are frequent, with inadequate control of diction. Mechanics Relevant outside sources, if required, are clearly introduced, accurately documented, and effectively integrated. Excellent grammar, spelling and usage are used. Outside sources, if required, are generally relevant but not always accurately documented or effectively integrated Occasional errors in grammar, spelling and usage may be distracting. Outside sources, if required, may not be appropriately documented or effectively integrated. Errors in grammar, spelling and usage may get in way of meaning. Outside sources, if required, are poorly documented and ineffectively used. Many errors in grammar, spelling and usage get in way of meaning. Written Communication Rubric

ePortfolio Grades by Rubric (Four-point Scale):

Valuable Information Gained as a Result of Pilot: Faculty reviewers training session—feedback on rubrics, need for more robust student reflections, level of students, kinds of assignments Faculty participants survey—more support needed for faculty and students; more emphasis on student reflection needed; 100% of those surveyed stated they would use ePortfolios again

ePortfolios For Tenure and Promotion Immediate Need for Digital Academic Portfolios (AP) Buy-In from all the constituents Commercial AP platform vs. Pace ePortfolio platform Standardized template Platform used by candidates for TAP and the various TAP review groups

Tenure and Promotion Template: Part I

Tenure and Promotion Template: Part II

ePortfolio Assignment Guide ePortfolio Blog ECHO 360 Videos Step-by-Step Tutorials Faculty Resources

Faculty ePortfolios

Questions? Our ePortfolio site: Beth Gordon Klingner, Linda Anstendig, Sarah Burns Feyl, Jim Stenerson, Sam Egan,