Promoting a deep approach to
professional learning in the field
Development and evaluation
of electronic personalised learning
G Finnerty, M A Volante, L Rockingham,
J MacLaren and M O’Driscoll
Centre for Research in Nursing and Midwifery Education
Division of Health and Social Care
Faculty of Health and Medical Sciences
June 2008
Acknowledgements
We would like to thank:
All the students who participated in the project from Cohorts 1 and 2 from the
Mentorship module.
The four students who gave of their time to speak to us about their mentor
experience.
Colleagues in the Mentorship teaching team.
Colleagues from the University of Surrey e-learning units and in particular Dr
Steve Rowett whose resourcefulness made the project possible.
Members of the Steering Group.
Dr Andrew Comrie and Professor Pam Smith for advice, guidance and
support throughout the project.
This project was funded by the University of Surrey Fund for the Strategic
Development of Learning and Teaching.
2
CONTENTS
1.0
Summary ....................................................................................................... 5
2.0
Introduction .................................................................................................... 6
3.0
Background ................................................................................................... 7
4.0
Module design, development and delivery for personalised learning plans
……………………………………………………………………………………...…8
5.0
Literature Review ........................................................................................ 12
6.0
Project approach and evaluation ................................................................. 18
7.0
Findings....................................................................................................... 22
8.0
Discussion ................................................................................................... 42
9.0
Conclusions and recommendations ............................................................. 45
APPENDIX ONE ..................................................................................................... 48
3
Glossary of terms
E-tivities
Electronic activities
ICT
Technology
KSF
Knowledge and Skills Framework
PDA
Personal Digital Assistant
SPT
Specialist Practice Teacher
VLE
Virtual Learning Environment
4
1.0
Summary
Aim of project

To develop an e-portfolio to manage student progress and assist with
authentic assessment on the Mentorship module (FHMS).
Objectives

To evaluate student experience of peer-supported reflective learning using
electronic portfolios

To increase staff understanding and potential of e-portfolios as a way to
engage students in meaningful learning.
Evaluation Methods

Nominal group technique and e-learning questionnaire involving e-voting by
students

Semi-structured interviews with module tutors in FHMS and staff from elearning unit

Biographical narrative interviews with a sample of students following
successful completion of the Mentorship Module.
Key Findings







Mentor students managed their learning and progress through use of the
Virtual Learning Environment (U-Learn). Support was presented through
multiple strands, for example, handbooks, lectures, peer engagement, a help
desk, IT services and the E-Learning Unit.
Mentor students actively engaged in the reflection process to inform their
learning and, importantly, their teaching and assessment.
Tutors felt they had ownership of the module, which they described as
organic and ‘living’.
Learners described a deeper understanding of teaching styles, theories and
new ways of performing in challenging mentoring roles. The blended learning
approach was generally viewed as a positive innovation to inform mentoring
as an art and a lifelong skill.
Personalised learning within dynamic e-portfolio is a product of the learner’s
own history, their future aspirations and how they engage with the design of
learning activities, including the use of e-technologies.
A route map which addresses learning strategies and content is part of the
scaffolding necessary for learners to organise information into meaningful
learning outcomes. This is demonstrated by the building of an e-portfolio of
personalised learning products.
Capturing student biographies is an effective approach to illuminate
understanding the modification of personal learning schemata.
5
2.0
Introduction
This report presents the outcomes of an education development and evaluation of
technology supported personalised learning undertaken during 2005 – 2007. The
work was funded by the University of Surrey Fund for the Strategic Development of
Learning and Teaching. The aim of the project was to: develop an e-portfolio to
manage student progress and assist with authentic assessment. The project used
the continuing professional development ‘Mentorship module’ (30 credits level 3) to
pilot the development. The specific module context provided the project with a
secondary aim of seeking to provide an effective and efficient learning experience
that will enhance the supervision of the student experience in practice settings
recognising the wider system in which mentoring and personalised learning plans are
located.
Specifically the project had the following objectives
 use e-portfolios to further develop the student experience of peer-supported
reflective learning
 support learner progress and assessment through the development of an eportfolio as a tool for capturing evidence of learning outcomes and for
ongoing professional development
 enhance the supervision experience of mentor students and their learners on
professional placements
 increase staff understanding and capacity of e-portfolios as a way to engage
students in a meaningful learning experience.
The aims and objectives were addressed using an action research design in which
two members of the module teaching team worked with an education developer, and
researcher to enquire into technology-supported personalised learning. The two
teachers worked closely with an e-learning technologist and the other members of
the module teaching team to design the planned e-tivities for students to build their eportfolio. The action research design intended to facilitate staff engagement with the
pedagogical practices necessary for the design and support of student centred elearning. A programme of staff development for teacher moderated on-line
discussion was put in place. A literature review on e-portfolios was undertaken and
the e-tivities supporting personalised learning plans were evaluated using
questionnaires and semi-structured interviews with staff. To understand the learner
mentor experience within the wider context of the professional learning in the field,
narrative interviews were undertaken after the completion of the module. This report
summarises the outcomes of the development and evaluation as a basis for
conversation and discussions with colleagues on e-developments for professional
learning.
Section 3 provides contextual background to professional learning in the field.
Section 4 outlines the design, development and delivery of the e-learning education
interventions to support personalised learning and the building of an ‘e-portfolio’.
Section 5 presents a review of selected relevant literature.
Section 6 descibes the project approach and methods for evaluation.
Section 7 presents findings using three perspectives. Firstly, the student perspective
with findings from the standard module evaluation questionnaire, the e-learning
evaluation tool and classroom field observations. Secondly, the teaching staff
6
perspective with findings from the semi-structured interview and finally presenting the
findings from learner mentor biographies using narrative interview.
Section 8 draws together the key issues emerging from the evaluation of electronic
personalised learning plans.
Section 9 provides some conclusions and offers recommendations for action for
consideration by relevant teaching and learning communities of the University.
3.0
Background
The project used the mentor preparation module as a case for enquiry into the
development of e-learning by means of an ‘electronic portfolio’ that supports learners
to manage their progress and assist with meaningful assessment processes. A
technological advantage of e-portfolios over traditional portfolios is that they are
sharable, which facilitates interaction between student and student as well as teacher
and student (Cotterill et al. 2004). The flexibility of the presentation methods and the
embedding of interactive elements in the building of e-portfolios have been found to
deepen learning for trainee teachers and to also reduce workload pressure in
comparison with producing traditional portfolios (Woodward and Nanlohy 2002).
Peer sharing and interaction was made possible through the discussion tool of
ULearn.
Whilst it was intended to supply the students with their own on-line learning space to
capture meaningful learning and build an e-portfolio, early in the project it became
clear that this was not going to be feasible with the information technology support
available. Instead, following discussion with the e-learning unit and Dr Rowett (in
particular), the functions of the university‘s virtual learning environment (ULearn –
Web CT Vista) were used to enable students to experience the use of technology to
support personal learning intentions and to show the personal process of enquiry
undertaken within the overall learning strategies of the module, for example,
reflective essay incorporating feedback from e-mediated peer discussion. The
decision was taken during the delivery of the module that the students would be
asked to submit a conventional paper based portfolio. Whilst some of the students
may have wished at the end of the module to have submitted their portfolio of
learning electronically, consideration also needed to be given to where the teachers
had reached in their understanding of e-learning as well as organisation processes
for example, the examination office staff.
Undergraduate teaching and learning in the Division of Health and Social Care is
delivered through programmes designed around classroom based learning in the
university and the development of clinical competence through practice learning and
reflection with mentors (workplace supervisors) in the local health economy. Methods
of assessment are based on engaging students in meaningful learning activities, the
products of which form a portfolio of evidence of professional knowledge,
understanding including learning how to learn, and clinical competence. The portfolio
is used to both track student progress and to assess student achievement of practice
learning outcomes at the appropriate academic level. Mentors are a crucial resource
in the assessment of practice learning outcomes and clinical competence and are
required by the professional body of the Nursing and Midwifery Council (NMC), to
undertake mentor preparation through University accredited and NMC approved
courses (NMC 2006).
The Division of Health and Social Care is contracted for continuing professional
development by the local Strategic Health Authority to provide mentor preparation
7
(amongst other provision). The module is also used by other healthcare employers.
Over one academic year the module is taken by approximately 400 learners. During
the year 2006/07 the module ran 11 times. This project planned to use data from the
first and second student cohorts of 2006/07 and the lessons learned through ongoing
evaluation by the teaching team of the following cohorts has informed module design
and delivery within the academic year.
4.0
Module design, development and delivery for personalised learning
plans
In this section the e-learning educational intervention is presented and outlines the
curriculum design and development of the module; the student constituency; the
university teachers and staff development for e-learning, and the specific e-tivities
supporting the building of a portfolio of meaningful learning experiences.
4.1 Module development
•
•
Blended campus and distance learning (15 credits at HE2/3)
Assessed by profile of reflective writing and mentor assessed learning
development plan (competency document)
Each cohort was run by a different pair from a group of 6 module tutors
4.2 The student constituency
The majority of students who undertake the module are registered practitioners
working in health services for example, nurses, midwives, operating department
practitioners and ambulance service personnel. All are adults who are working and
taking the module for professional development either in relation to their own
personal aspirations or because of employer requirement. The range of ICT skills
within health care is well known (Laurillard 2005) and a typical early posting on
ULearn during the project reflects student difficulty:
“I am struggling with this way of learning, not sure it’s for me? It’s really quite
stressful” .…
4.3 The staff
The Mentorship module is resourced by a core group of six teachers who have a
particular interest in learning and teaching within practice settings and have been
supporting the module over various lengths of time. The teachers had been involved
in the working group undertaking the curriculum review and redesign of the module to
meet the NMC standards for supporting learning and assessing in practice settings
(NMC 2006).
The teachers were afforded a range of staff development in relation to ULearn and
teacher supported peer mediated on-line group discussion. All university teachers
are required to undertake the introduction to ULearn provided by the University elearning unit in order to become a ULearn user. The project made funding specifically
available for the six teachers to undertake the Oxford Brookes course peer learning
on line. Four teachers took up the opportunity. Two members of the teaching team
who supported cohorts 1 and 2 were key participants in the action research design
for implementation of the e-portfolio development project. They were supported by an
e-learning technologist from the university e-learning unit. The table overleaf
summarises the structure and content of the e-tivities undertaken by the mentor
students
during
Units
1
and
2
of
the
Mentorship
Module
8
Table 1: Summary of e-tivities within overall module
Unit of
learning
1
Coursework to be produced
Learning and Teaching in Practice Level 2 & 3
For this assignment you should develop a teaching plan
that you will use with your learners. You should submit
this plan with a 500 word reflective critique which
explores the effectiveness of your plan in the light of
relevant theoretical literature, and personal and
professional experience. Within this unit you should
include a discussion of how you used learning theories
and domains of learning to support the development of
your teaching plan.
E-tivities
Other Activities/
comments

Students to undertake pre-course
checklist to ensure they have requisite
knowledge and skills to be able to
participate in the online learning
environment

ULearn log-in session

Hopes,
fears
discussion thread

Introduction to
and
expectations
o
module café for social interaction
and discussions
o
sources of help including the
‘Help-at-hand’ area

Discussion of library resources and
online access of books, journals etc.

Discussion thread: Priorities of workload
and the learning environment (level
specific - students access the discussion
at the level they are studying)

Uploading of draft assignments and
receipt of feedback
Threads throughout
module
Assignment Draft
uploaded for review by
personal tutor by end of
day three of module
9
1 and 2
2
Collaborative online small group working to
produce a seminar on their chosen topic. This
combines enquiry based learning and group
ULearn
discussions
for
classroom
presentation
Assessing and Evaluating Learning
Level 2

Group specific discussions with allocated
online tutor

Level specific discussions based around
individual learning journeys (My learning
journey) in preparation for part 3
reflection ‘my learning journey’.
Student led seminar
presentations on day four
face-to-face student
feedback and evaluation of
seminar presentations
Prepare a 500 word reflective discussion which
identifies two types of assessment used to assess
learners in your clinical practice. You should compare
and contrast these methods / strategies in relation to
their strengths and weaknesses, paying particular
attention to the concepts of reliability and validity.
Level 3
You should prepare a 500 word reflective critical
analysis of the concepts of reliability and validity in
assessment in relation to your assessment of a learner
in your practice area. You should draw upon a range of
resources, including personal and professional
experience.
10
A
written
reflection:
Unit Three: My Learning Journey
Level 2 & 3
This final piece of work for your profile is a 1500 word
reflection on your development as a mentor. The title of
this is ‘Reflecting on my journey from the beginning of
the course how do I now feel about the mentorship
module and my practice as a mentor?’ You should draw
upon your experiences of undertaking the module, in
attending, studying and mentoring learners in your
practice area. You should demonstrate evidence of
appropriate reading around the subject of mentorship by
referring to the relevant theories you have learnt about.

My Learning journey
discussions remain open
and
group
To be submitted 1 month
following completion of the
module with unit 1 & 2
reflections and learning
and development plan
completed in practice with
mentor (paper copy)
Your work should have a clear reflective structure, and
clearly demonstrate description, analysis, synthesis,
evaluation and self-awareness, and give an idea of how
you feel you may further develop your mentorship whilst
fulfilling all the learning outcomes.
Learning and
development
plan
Competency assessment in practice Four proficiency
statements must all be signed off and include comments
on your practice at both the formative and summative
stages.
To be submitted (paper
copy), 1 month following
completion of the module
with unit 1, 2 & 3
reflections
11
5.0 Literature Review
5.1 Introduction
The purpose of this review of literature is to highlight the key elements which have
informed the development of electronic resources within the Mentorship module in the
Division of Health and Social Care. Evaluation of these new developments has entailed
reviewing and analysing electronic portfolios used for medical training and teacher
training. The literature review is organised by firstly stating the purpose of e-portfolios
and defining terms. How e-portfolios are structured will be examined before discussing
problems which have been reported through evaluations in Australia, the United States
of America (US) and the United Kingdom (UK). This review then incorporates
evaluations which include views of students, teachers and educators who have used
these electronic records over the last decade. The intention is to complement other work
in progress involving e-portfolios and electronic tools for recording learning across the
University.
5.2 Purpose of e-portfolios
The primary purpose of the e-portfolio is provision of a pedagogical tool for recording
and managing learning. Garrett and Jackson (2006) suggest the electronic portfolio
should be used as a tool to contextualise and embed knowledge in the workplace but
Hennessy and Howes (2004) assert that, although useful as a collection of evidence of
learning, the e-portfolio should not be merely a ‘transcription tool’ or ‘archive’ (Herbert,
1998). It would appear that e-portfolios are increasingly being used for job applications
and promotions and also as a tool to show development of thinking (Butler, 2006). As
Cambridge (2004) asserts, the electronic portfolio should represent what a person (or
organisation) has learned over time through a collection of authentic and diverse
evidence. Across the literature, it would appear that what has the most meaningful
pedagogical influence is how learners are enabled to analyse their own evidence and
take responsibility for their learning.
The e-portfolio has been shown to be a valuable tool to empower learners through use
of self-evaluation and reflection, assisting with planning of work-based learning (Graham
2004). This is of particular value to mentors as a tool to assist with planning supervision
and assessment of students in diverse workplace settings. Cotterill et al (2004) also
emphasise the positive value of transferability of data to support life-long learning. It is
this capacity for recording personal and professional growth which makes the electronic
portfolio a versatile instrument in current fast-changing health environments. The social
networks made possible through use of e-portfolios also has potential to promote lifelong
learning (Cambridge, 2004). Additionally, the e-portfolio can assist learners to see
patterns in their work over time and to process feedback from tutors and peers.
Importantly, e-portfolios provide learners with the opportunity to see their progression
and to visualise how all the learning and activities link together (Williams 2000).
Georgi and Crowe (1998) cite Gardner (1987) who suggested the portfolio provided:
12
“Naturalistic sources of information about how peoples around the world develop skills
important to their way of life” (p189). Hamilton (2004) terms these skills ‘transcendent’ as
they emerge through the e-portfolio building process and can encompass such things as
heightened critical thinking and understanding diverse societies and cultures. Cambridge
(2004) claims that the test of this durable learning is that it can last beyond a module or
programme.
The e-portfolio is now frequently used as a tool to ‘showcase’ examples of best work, for
example through video-clips or podcasts. The increasingly interactive elements provided
by creative hardware, software and institutional VLEs (Sharpe et al 2004) mean that
active learning is promoted through providing learners with a platform to dialogue with
peers and tutors. This provides a medium to engage students in meaningful learning
experiences. This is particularly relevant with a new emphasis on the ‘student voice’
(Hughes, 2006), which has only recently received attention (Kilpatrick 2007).
Discussions abound as to the extent to which e-portfolios can be used for performancebased assessment (Georgi and Crowe, 1998). This important issue will be covered in
more detail later in the review.
5.3 Structure of e-portfolios
Individual, faculty and institutional models are used across the United States (Cambridge
2000). Throughout the literature, decisions regarding constructing and implementing an
individual e-portfolio should include:




Agreeing the purpose of the electronic portfolio, i.e. for learning, assessment or
professional development
Prescriptiveness of the guidelines for the creation of an e-portfolio
How pieces of selected information should be organised, for example, around
themes selected by the student or lecturers?
Input of tutors, lecturers and peers, including feedback mechanisms.
Learners are being encouraged to record their experiences using a variety of media,
including mobile clinical e-portfolios, using wireless Personal Digital Assistants (Garrett
and Jackson, 2006). As asserted by Laurillard (2007) mobile technologies such as podcasting also enable continuity between contexts and provide opportunities for social
construction of knowledge (Grob 2008). There is still a need, however, for provision of
‘tangible flags’ or sign posts for students. Laurillard (2005) emphasises how essential
explicit learner goals are at the outset of an e-portfolio. This is because if learners focus
on the operational aspects of a task, rather than its meaning or content, surface learning
only is likely to ensue.
It is the learner’s choice of modes and materials selected which makes the e-portfolio
such a learner-centred activity (Mason et al, 2004). The key to presentation of a
successful e-portfolio is not the technological facilities used but the demonstration of
reflective learning using a digital interface:
“The most effective electronic portfolios link student reflective practice with
products and performances, which indicate hands-on and applied acquisition of
practical skills and knowledge involving learning technologies” (Jonassen 2001, p
7).
13
Laurillard (2007) has analysed various modes of mobile technology used by students
and teachers within a Conversational Framework. Her research has demonstrated how
the richness of mobile learning can be enhanced and digitally facilitated due to
immediacy of actually being in the practice environment. Certainly, ‘Pebble Pad’ enables
inclusion of multiple social networks for learning and recording practice under one
umbrella (Grob 2008, personal communication).
5.4 Medical portfolios
In the UK, e-portfolios are structured in a variety of ways, depending on the users and
audiences. They have most commonly been used in medicine. These are often
structured as an evaluation tool to assess performance in authentic contexts. As Butler
(2006) suggests, this is imperative to record continuing learning and to keep pace with
rapid advances and developments in health. Driessen et al (2005) assert that medical
portfolios are unique because the focus of reflection is on actions. Problems arise,
however, because the portfolio in this format is often presented merely as a ‘dossier of
evidence’. Butler (2006) suggests that a misunderstanding of portfolio pedagogy is
apparent across the medical literature. Haig (2007, personal communication) disputes
this, suggesting that General Practitioner trainees in Scotland report that competencies
are linked with the national curriculum and lecture time is subsequently reduced.
Implementing a tool which records student progression across professions has been
suggested (Cotterill et al 2004). A generic e-portfolio system is in use in Newcastle
meaning that collaborative connections can be made, linking with other web-based
electronic systems. Cotterill et al (2004) highlight the necessity for e-portfolios to be
flexible and easy to customise.
5.5 Nursing portfolios
Having examined a selection of web e-portfolios used in medicine in 2005 (Cotterill et al
2004), it could be said that structures are traditionally ‘rigid’. In contrast, nursing
portfolios have been criticised for lacking any ‘unified understanding’ in the literature
(Spere and El-Ansari, 2004). This is, however, improving with increased use of digital
formats for reflection on practice. The Royal College of Nursing is the largest European
professional body and has recently been implementing an e-portfolio for supporting
nurses’ continuing professional development and re-accreditation (Cambridge 2004).
5.6 Benefits of e-portfolios









Help to focus student thinking, and translate theory into practice (Butler 2006)
Aid management of work for engineers through use of a personal website
(Campbell and Schimdt, 2005)
An instrument to enhance employability (Cambridge 2004)
Can help art and design students form their artistic identity
Can help individuals to manage and distribute personal digital information and
therefore contribute to knowledge management (Cambridge, 2004)
Provide a tool for asynchronous discussion within a large group
Can help to support diverse students and enhance undergraduate learning
(Cambridge 2004)
Have potential to improve patient care (Butler, 2006)
Provide opportunities to network and communicate both synchronously and
asynchronously (Greenberg 2004)
14
5.7 Problems with e-portfolios
Portfolio construction is notoriously time-consuming and reliant on staff support (Butler
2006). Extra time therefore needs to be set aside for preparation to use an electronic
interface (Scholes et al. 2004). Additionally, the technological ‘novelty’ or troubleshooting
may overshadow the purpose of the portfolio (Woodward and Nanlohy, 2002). As
Laurillard (2005) asserts, although the aim is to promote discussion using
communicative media, any pedagogical benefits depend on a healthy dialogue between
student and tutor or student and student. Gomez (2004) found that being able to track
and guide student learning remotely was beneficial for students on long placements.
Conversely, students compiling electronic personal development profiles at
Bournemouth University felt there was a ‘Big Brother’ effect which affected authenticity
(pdp.bournemouth.ac.uk).
Ownership of e-portfolio data has emerged as a contentious issue. As Kilpatrick (2007)
asserts, there is currently confusion as to an institution’s right to retain data and
responsibilities of an institution to store information about students in this format.
Woodward and Nanlohy (2002) argue that ownership needs to be clearly established by
all authors using electronic and digital tools.
Problems also occur with assessing portfolios. The audience needs to be clearly
established and defined (Herbert, 1998). Cayne (1997) described problems with lack of
guidelines for assessment. For this reason, Webb et al. (2003) stress that marking and
grading criteria need to be extremely clear and question whether portfolios are, in fact,
valid forms of learning and competence. Problems with assessing professionalism in
medicine have also been documented (Butler 2006). A supportive educational
environment is therefore essential so that students feel comfortable revealing any
weaknesses or mistakes (Pinsky and Fryer-Edwards 2004).
5.8 Views of students
Darling (2001) found that students described feeling confused and anxious if guidelines
for portfolio-building were not well defined. Students appeared to benefit if examples of
past portfolios were shared and if the scope, nature and value of the development
portfolios was made explicit. Resentment by students was common if a balance did not
exist between an emphasis on construction which was student-driven and overprescribed guidelines. Students in Darling’s (2001) study also expressed concern with
the subjectivity of evaluation of their portfolios.
Conversely, a sample of pharmacy students (n=154) in Manchester reported that the
portfolio was an effective tool to summatively assess work, to support their learning and
also prepared them for their future continuing professional development (CPD) (Ashcroft
and Hall, 2006). E-portfolios have also been reported to be valued by learners for
accessing of information from a “central” place (Hennessy and Howes, 2004).
‘Pebble Pad’ was used by students undertaking a Post-Compulsory PGCE course at
Wolverhampton University, to record their progress (Kilpatrick 2007). A significant
outcome noted by several students in video transcripts, was the longevity of the tool for
blogging within a ‘personalised learning environment’. Daily entries to the e-portfolio
were being made more than nine weeks after completion of the course. This
demonstrates the power of virtual communities to sustain lifelong learning.
15
5.9.1 Views of trainee teachers
Trainee teachers in one study described how the flexibility of presentation methods and
the interactive nature of building an e-portfolio, helped deepen learning and reduce
workload pressure (Woodward and Nanlohy, 2002).
Attractiveness for students of graphics, movies, sound and other computer applications
help to build a running multi-media record of a student’s growth and development found
by student teachers (Bartlett 2000 p 296).
Ford and Olhausen (1991) surveyed the attitudes, beliefs and habits of 115 teacher
education students in the US. Just 1% reported that their beliefs about assessment had
changed and the assessment of their own portfolios played a critical role.
As part of teacher education, a reflective portfolio is often used to help embed theoretical
principles, skills and knowledge in the classroom. Interestingly, there appears to be a
dearth of research with a focus on e-portfolio implementation for trainee mentors or
trainee nursing and midwifery teachers. With new Nursing and Midwifery Council
standards in place (NMC 2006), nurses and midwives with a mentoring role will have to
demonstrate that they have attained certain standards and criteria to ‘sign off’ students’
practice as professionally competent. It is possible that the e-portfolio will provide a
central medium to display and validate this evidence.
5.9.2 Views of teachers/educator in the literature
E-portfolios have been reported to provide an immediate way to assess learning by
teachers (McKenzie et al. 2002). In one study, focus groups were held with medical
educators and questionnaires were issued (Hennessy and Howes, 2004). Although staff
initially found the e-portfolio web interface difficult to use, some described how overall
computer skills improved and benefited as a result of working with the e-portfolio.
Designing Constructivist Learning Environments (CLEs) through portfolio
building
Jonassen (2001) asks; how will we know if students are engaging in meaningful
learning? Technologies need to be introduced which enhance, not dilute meaningfulness
in learning. To help guide learners to construct their learning, a rubric can be introduced.
This is a tool or model presented to learners at the beginning of an assignment which:
“Aids the learner in refining the product….to include the desired content aspects, while
still maintaining the freedom to develop a product-oriented assignment which reflects the
learner’s personality, style and knowledge” (Crawford 2002: 5).
There are a variety of rubrics to suit a range of educational purposes, for example, for
‘holistic critical thinking scoring’ and as authentic assessment tools. Crawford (2002)
suggests that a rubric can function as an evaluative tool, guiding a learner’s expectations
for an assignment. Jonassen (2001) emphasises the need to assure that students’
learning is:
16
Active ; Constructive; Collaborative; Intentional; Complex; Contextual; Conversational
and Reflective.
The following diagrammatic representation of a rubric shows how the attributes and
characteristics of meaningful learning are interconnected. These characteristics can be
used to aid discussion in the classroom (Jonassen 2001) or used as criteria for
assessment to identify students’ progress, understanding, knowledge and skills (Williams
2000).
Figure 1
Collaborative
Active/manipulative
Constructive
Intentional
Conversational
Complex
Reflective
Contextualised
This flexibility and use of a constructivist paradigm obviously offers potential as a focal
tool to underpin e-portfolio development. Jonassen’s selected characteristics are so
relevant to personalised learning that this rubric will be used as a framework to underpin
analysis of interview data from the mentor students. (Please see section 7.3, p 34).
Summary
This short review of the ever-expanding literature on electronic portfolios has covered
the key pieces of work which have informed the development of research tools to help
present a robust evaluation of implementation of an e-portfolio in the Mentorship module.
Although problems with e-portfolios have been identified (for example, issues of
ownership of student material) the literature demonstrates that benefits to learners,
teachers and institutions may be profound. Key advantages cited are pedagogical
benefits of mobile and electronic technologies such as immediate and site-specific
communication, enabling ‘live’ channels of conversation and new styles of reflection
17
between students and their peers and even tutors. The Wolverhampton Pebble Pad
project showed the potential for on-going and meaningful peer learning. It is evident that
signposts and maps for students need to be clear in any constructivist learning
environment. The central aim of the current study is to develop an electronic portfolio to
manage student progress and assist with authentic assessment. The literature therefore
supports the rationale for the project and highlights the need for teachers to engage with
students using alternative platforms (such as an electronic portfolio) to create a
meaningful, personalised learning experience. The study design has been partially
derived from the literature and how the project objectives will be met will be described in
the following section.
6.0 Project approach and evaluation
The normal module classroom evaluation process was used to evaluate the
implementation of the e-tivities and teaching and assessment strategies supporting
learners on the mentorship module to build a personalised learning plan and produce an
e-portfolio. The standard module evaluation form was used along with the university elearning unit feedback questionnaire. These two tools have consistently been used for all
of the 11 cohorts undertaking the module, and provide teachers with data as a basis to
review their actions in an action research process of teacher enquiry. The evaluation
format was extended to incorporate qualitative in-depth feedback on the production and
development of an e-portfolio within the professional life course of the mentorship
module student. Teaching staff were also invited to participate. The intention of the
evaluation is to illuminate how the supported student enquiry process used by the
student builds a personalised e-portfolio for assessment of the module outcomes. The
approach draws on that of illuminative evaluation to compare planned activity with
student perceptions and experience of building an e-portfolio.
The main measures to identify project outcomes are:




Collation of student views of the experience of the process of building an eportfolio to manage their progress
The level of engagement, formative input and levels of support in the process of
reflective practice learning
The value of electronic portfolios for assisting with managing the clinical
supervision of pre-registration students and also to manage continuing
professional development
Teacher’s understanding of e-portfolios as a means to provide evidence of
students’ learning and as a tool to enhance meaningful learning
Sample
The sample for the project and its evaluation consisted of:


The first two cohorts from a total of 11 cohorts undertaking the mentorship
preparation module during the academic year 2006/07 (n= 62)
Teaching staff of the mentor preparation module team and the e-learning unit
(n=7).
18
Ethical considerations
Professor Desombre (Chair of University Ethics Committee) was consulted in October
2006 regarding status of this evaluation for ethical approval. It was agreed that, because
the participants had informed consent, including the project team’s intent to publish, a
University ethics opinion was not necessary.
All participants, students and staff were provided with written information sheets
describing the project evaluation. These were issued by the evaluator during Day Five
(Evaluation Day) for both Cohort One and Cohort Two in November, 2006. In March
2007 the evaluator collected the module results list from the module administrator, which
was confirmed by the examinations office. All students who had passed the module were
sent a formal letter inviting them to participate in an in-depth biographical narrative
interview. Students were approached to participate in the interview after the module
assessment results were in the public domain to avoid compromising student
achievement of learning outcomes during module delivery. The decision was made that
only those who passed the module were invited to participate so as not to intrude on
retrieval processes.
Data sources and analysis
Three sources of data were used for the evaluation to understand how students were
supported and experienced building an e-portfolio and their experience of the
mentorship module within their professional life course. Also staff views of participating
in the delivery of the mentorship module and educational e-tivities interventions were
captured. The data sources were as follows:
1 Classroom evaluation: Standard module evaluation form, e-learning unit survey
and classroom evaluation observation
2 Semi-structured interview with mentor preparation module tutors and e-learning
unit staff
3 Biographical narrative interview
These are now presented in turn.
1 Classroom evaluation
Standard module evaluation form
All students completed the self-report standard module evaluation form which uses a 3point satisfaction scale of very satisfied, satisfied and unsatisfied. Specific questions on
ICT and module teaching and assessing strategies were selected for analysis using
frequency counts. Responses were analysed in greater depth using the responses to the
e-learning survey.
E-learning survey
An e-learning questionnaire was developed by the e-learning unit to evaluate student
perceptions of using an electronic platform – ULearn. Responses were obtained from
cohorts 1 and 2 using an electronic voting system capturing individual feedback via
19
handsets. This was carried out in the classroom as a group activity (see photograph)and
therefore only aggregate frequency count data was available for each cohort.
Figure 2
Photo courtesy of SR from e-learning unit on use of electronic voting system to
capture responses to e-learning questionnaire.
All students engaged in the exercise and, when giving informal feedback about the
method, the majority stated that they particularly liked the immediacy and visual impact
of the graphic scoring. In presenting the data analysis Cohorts 1 and 2 are amalgamated
except where large differences were found across Cohorts.
Observation
The observations recorded by the evaluator took place during the classroom evaluation
session following a nominal group technique exercise1. The evaluator was present
during the nominal group activity for both cohorts and captured some feedback from the
student discussion of Cohort 1 and the ‘closing circle’ discussion of Cohort 2. The data
in ‘field note’ form of what was said during these closing discussions is complementary
to the quantitative data sets of the standard module evaluation form and the e-learning
questionnaire. The data were used to illuminate the quantitative findings.
1
The data from the nominal group technique were not used for evaluation of the project. The ease with
which students engaged with U-Learn seemed to be largely dependent on each student’s confidence and
prior experience with e-technologies. It was therefore challenging to make general statements which were
inclusive of the group’s views. The statements also differed between Cohort 1 and 2.
20
2 Semi-structured interviews with tutors and personnel in the e-learning unit
During the lifetime of this project, the Mentorship module teaching team comprised
seven teachers of whom five agreed to participate in the interview. The purpose was to
ascertain views of setting up a new style of module and to also provide a space for them
to share how they visualised the in-depth component of the evaluation taking place. The
five teachers from the mentorship module teaching team were interviewed at the
university using a semi-structured interview schedule. Each interview lasted
approximately thirty minutes. The same questions were posed to all five respondents.
One member of the e-learning unit was interviewed and provided detail about the setting
up of electronic portfolios on the University VLE. The interviews were analysed using
thematic content analysis (Patton 1990).
3 Biographical narrative interview (BNI)
Four students responded to the letter of invitation with an information sheet to participate
in the interviews following feedback on their assessment results. The interviews were
planned to take place after the completion of the module and submission of the portfolio
of evidence for assessment to avoid compromising student achievement of learning
outcomes during module delivery. All students were from Cohort One and had the
permission of their line manager. The interviews were carried out by GF at the working
sites of three out of the four respondents. This assisted in gaining contextual information
about the workplace teaching and learning environments described by the students.
Each interview lasted one hour and participants were given a high street store voucher
for £25.
To gain a complete biographical narrative, it is important to have a defined beginning,
then sequence of events, then an ending (Wengraf and Chamberlayne, 2006). The BNI
method necessitates asking firstly a single question to induce narratives or stories from
the respondent. The question asked of the four participants was designed to capture
their story, beginning from a time that was significant for them:
We are interested in practitioners’ experiences in becoming a mentor. Please tell
me about your experiences of the mentorship module from when it became
important in your life and up to now. Please take all the time you need. I’ll listen
first and take some notes as you are speaking and ask questions when you have
finished talking.
The BNI method is structured around two sessions (Wengraf 2007). The first session
involves free speaking of the participant, which is uninterrupted. The interviewee is
encouraged to speak from their frame of reference rather than the interviewer’s. During
the interview interaction, emphasis is on active listening by the interviewer so that cues
can be recorded, in preparation for the second session. This is centred on capturing
‘particular incident narratives’ (PINs) considered to be the nearest to the actual
experience when it occurred. Questions are asked in the same order as presented by
the interviewee in their response to the first single question. The interview was closed by
the interviewer saying, “That’s all my questions. Thanks very much. Is there anything
else you would like to tell me before we end the session? PAUSE. What else are you
doing for the rest of the day?”
21
The interviews were transcribed, read and analysed using thematic content analysis
(Field and Morse 1985, Patton,1990). The underpinning framework used to codify the
emerging themes was Jonassen’s rubric (2001) as presented on page 17. These themes
were validated independently by the project manager and then confirmed with other
members of the project team.
7.0 Findings
Results from the group evaluation are presented using descriptive statistics. Cohort One
evaluated the module separately from Cohort Two.
7.1 Student perspective
This section provides results of the standard module evaluation and e-learning
questionnaire and qualitative comments from observation of the evaluation process.
7.1.1 Standard student evaluation form
A large amount of data were available from the standard module evaluation data2.
Taking up the advice from Cousin (2007) to think with the data, eight statements
pertaining to assessment, student motivation and ICT were selected from the standard
student evaluation. The results are presented in Figure 7.1 Levels of satisfaction with
how the module supported learning.
With the exception of responses to the statement ‘there was clarity of information about
assessment criteria’ for Cohort 1, in general the students were satisfied with the module.
Of the seven statements, the response of two thirds of cohorts 1 and 2 were satisfied to
‘where it was used IT helped me learn’, is below that of the percentage satisfaction level
for the other statements. For each of the statements Cohort 2 is considerably more
satisfied because the proportion ‘very satisfied’ is much higher for cohort 2 (note this
difference is not illustrated in Figure 7.1).
The difference in satisfaction levels between Cohorts 1 and 2 is both large and
consistent across all the statements. We went back to the teachers to work with them
and reflect on the data to consider why such a consistently large difference might have
occurred (Cousin 2007). In the conversations, what emerged was that during the week
between C1 and C2 starting, the teachers met and reflected on their teaching
experience with C1 and made planned changes to the teaching approaches for
implementation with C 2 including how ULearn was introduced. The alterations in the
teaching and learning strategies in the delivery for C 2 are presented in table 7.1.
2
The evaluation team are aware of the difficulties of using student satisfaction measures as a basis for
quality enhancement of learning and teaching. The standard module evaluation form asks students to report
their satisfaction.
22
Table 2 Alterations to teaching and learning strategies for C2
Day 1: 15 minute presentation about ULearn prior to logging on session
utlised buddy approach to classroom activities
Library session compulsory
Hopes and fears ice-breaker sheets collated and posted on
ULearn
Status passage reading taken home
Day 2: ULearn refresher session held at 4pm and not lunchtime
Day 5: Posted hopes and fears revisited within evaluation
The design of the evaluation is not robust enough to make the claim that such changes
explain the differences in cohort satisfaction levels but they can suggest explanations. It
is possible that the methods and techniques used to support explanation for
understanding from the student perspective enabled C 2 students to engage in
meaningful learning and a process of meta-cognition which connected and extended
their current schemata of understanding (Eraut 2000). The interpretation has some
support from the field observational feedback data of C 2.
One student said: ”Professionally as well as personally, I think I’ve developed”
Another stated that the module had been “empowering”’
There were varied cohort responses to the statement; ‘there was clarity of information
about assessment criteria’. 48% of C1 was satisfied compared to 100% of C2.
The findings from the e-learning survey are used to explore in more depth the response
to a) ‘where it was used IT helped me learn’ of the standard module evaluation form
and b) the student experience of e-tivities as part of a managed learning process for the
purpose of supporting the students’ approach to meta-cognition.
23
Figure 3 Levels of satisfaction with how module supported learning (selected standard module evaluation form questions).
71
there was clarity of information about assessment criteria
100
48
98
the assessment/s related to the module outcomes
all
100
96
81
the number & nature of assessments (with submission dates) was made
clear to me
100
67
67
where it was used I.T. helped me to learn
c2
71
63
module has improved confidence in tackling unfamiliar problems
86
95
79
module stimulated enthusiasm for further learning
82
90
100
c1
88
91
85
learning helped develop analytical and problem solving skills
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
24
7.1.2

E-learning questionnaire
ULearn usage
The e-learning questionnaire was administered at the end of the module, after the
students had been working with ULearn for 11 weeks. At the end of the module, 29%
of C1 and C2 respondents rated their expertise with using computers in their studies
as high or very high; just under half (45%) describe their expertise as ‘OK’.
Confidence in C2 appeared to be higher than in C1; 20% of C2 rated their expertise
‘very high’ compared to 4% of C1; and 11% of C1 rate their expertise as very low
compared to 0% of C2 (see table 7.2).
Figure 4 Expertise in using computers in your studies
12%
Very high
average c1+c2
20%
4%
C2
17%
15%
19%
High
C1
45%
45%
44%
OK
21%
20%
22%
Low
Very low
0%
0%
6%
11%
5%
10%
15%
20%
25%
30%
35%
40%
45%
The learner constituency of the mentorship module live off campus and are full-time
working professionals who are released by their employers to attend the university on
a part-time study basis. Students had internet access through a range of computers,
but work and home were the most predominant location for accessing ULearn. Both
C1 (83%) and C2 (85%) experienced technical problems using ULearn and the open
feedback responses on how to improve the students experience indicates technical
resolution is likely to make a difference to student engagement with e-learning.
“Address ULearn technical issues regarding downloading information and
parking assignments”
“Stop it crashing / freezing every 5 minutes”
The difference in cohort experience emerges in identifying and getting help to deal
with the technical problems. Across the questions concerning help and support C2
consistently indicates a greater level of negative perceptions with the help, support
and guidance offered compared to C1. Overall C1 found ULearn easier to use than
C2.
C1 showed greater frequency of use of ULearn with 61% of C1 using ULearn once a
week or more compared to 53% of C2. Although C1 are logging on more often, a
much higher proportion of C2 are using ULearn for 5+ hours per week during the
25
50%
module (21% compared to 8% in C1). C2 are having fewer but longer sessions on
ULearn. The open questions on the E-learning questionnaire shows that the use of
ULearn does realise some benefits.
`
"Made me feel more comfortable using a PC than I was previously”
“Challenged me to learn something new”

The self managed learner
Response data from four questions from the e-learning questionnaire were used as
an indicator of student management of their learning. The questions and responses
are presented in the following table:
Table 3 Self managed learning.
Attitudes to statement
'Using Ulearn helped me manage my studies for this module better'
5
strongly disagree
11
Cohort 2
25
disagree
33
Cohort 1
25
not sure
33
35
agree
15
10
strongly agree
7
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
50
Although C2 appear to hold more negative perceptions of technical support for
ULearn, they hold more positive perceptions of ULearn than C1 in helping them
manage their studies and in particular a perception that they would like to use
ULearn for all their modules. It is possible that with C2 having a greater level of
expertise in using ULearn for their studies than C1, C2 has more awareness of how
ULearn can support their learning intentions. That said, both cohorts are similar in
distribution of their perceptions that using ULearn has helped them understand the
module. So it is not simply a matter of understanding the module content, there also
appears to be a student orientation to e-learning technology emerging. From the field
observation of developmental negative feedback data, C 1 predominantly identify
technical and student feedback issues, even although they perceived they got the
help and guidance they needed with technical difficulties more than C2.
26
Cohort one developmental negative comments
Need a prerequisite level of computer skills prior to coming on the course3
Felt unsupported if not computer literate, when accessing remotely
Can feel discouraged due to emphasis on IT
Teething problems with U-Learn eg ‘parking’ the assignments
Problems with downloading because home computer didn’t have Java
Hidden costs of going to an internet café and printing
More time needed to prepare for the presentations
Assignment guidelines need to be given earlier eg Day 2
Difficulty accessing a traditional tutorial
Prefer individual to generic feedback
Although C1 held more positive perceptions of gaining help and guidance when
needed than C2, lack of preparedness for ULearn seemed to predominate in their
perceptions of control of their learning. This may also explain why C2 were more
highly satisfied in the standard module evaluation form data given the different
approach to preparing the cohorts for ULearn and C1 and C2 perceptions on clarity
of the information on assessment criteria. From the observational data both cohorts
were of the view that ”Everything could/can be submitted on U-Learn”’ including
being able to ”submit final work online”.

E-mediated discussion
In response to the question ‘I would be able to study equally well on this module if I
had never logged into ULearn’ 65% of C2 agreed compared to 34% of C1. In similar
vein only 25% of C2 disagreed with the statement compared to 41% of C1. The
responses to the question ‘I felt comfortable using the ULearn discussions to learn on
this module’ showed 58% of C1 agreed compared to 42% of C2. The data illuminate
differences in how cohorts felt about studying using ULearn discussions. More
marked is the difference in perception between C1 and C2 on the extent to which
course materials that were available on ULearn helped them learn on the module,
79% of C1 agreed with the statement compared to 55% of C2. It is possible that the
lack of help and guidance when needed by C2 is linked with their perceptions of the
course materials including e-discussions. What is consistent across cohorts is the
level of agreement on the lecturer feedback. Whilst discussion may have a place
what makes the difference is the feedback from the teacher and teacher support in
the discussions. The following quote is from a student’s open response e-learning
questionnaire:
3
It is interesting to note that at least three people pulled out because they felt their computer skills were
inadequate
27
“Discussion forum was great. Enjoyed linking with peers and tutors”
It is not e-learning technology per se that facilitates a self managed learner, rather
how the overall learning experience is designed, constructed and experienced and elearning located within that. The positive comments and also possibly the negative
comments from the field observation data are supportive of such an interpretation
table 7.3.
Table 4 Comments from observation of the module evaluation
Cohort 1 positive comments
Cohort 2 positive comments
We had enough support from the U-Learn was very good
personal tutors-with a prompt response
Help was available for assignments
Useful to split module into three sections
Enjoyed group support
Balance of days was good-liked the
pattern
Structure of the course was good
Relevance of teaching sessions to written
work
Cohort 1 negative comments
Cohort 2 negative comments
It was “slow torture” to hear flexibility of “It’s exhausting…I had to go on the
writing assignments
computer at midnight” when sharing
access with children in the family
The observational data below from the closing circle of Cohort 2 shows the context to
which e-learning on the module both contributes and creates.
Empowering
Relevant
Really friendly
Useful to students
“It changed my way of thinking towards students. I now look at everything in a
different light”
“It made me more aware of mentorship-and the whole journey of learning”
“It made me reflect more on my practice and be a good role model…I didn’t realise
how important it was until this course”
In summary, the findings from these data sources demonstrate how essential student
support was, in terms of how the learning experience is constructed and timely
access to teacher and technical input. The design of the learning activities helped
them manage their learning rather than necessarily ULearn per se. E-learning is an
element that offered a possibility of peer supported learning when not at the
University. Whilst the cohorts’ experience is variable, what is generalisable is the
power of carefully designed and executed learning activities for meaningful student
learning.
28
7.2
Teaching staff perspective
A convenience sample of five (out of seven) tutors was invited to participate in a
semi-structured interview. Questions centred on adaptation of the individual tutors to
delivery of the mentor module using a personalised e-portfolio approach.
It is significant that some tutors were themselves using an electronic interface and ULearn for the first time in their teaching practice. This created some anxiety as the
tutors were expected to move away from the traditional structure of paper portfolios.
Four themes were generated from the thematic content analysis of the six interviews.
Embracing the virtual culture; Developing digital communities of learning; The
organic nature of e-portfolio building; and Being an ‘invisible presence’. These are
presented using interview extracts to reveal some of the realities of promoting a
reflective platform for students using electronic activities blended with face to face,
traditional learning and teaching approaches.
(i) Embracing the virtual culture
The following quote emerged in response to question three, regarding tutors’ feelings
about which evaluation strategies would be most appropriate to capture students’
views:
“The nominal group technique is the first opportunity to be open and honest about
engaging with the technology (there were people who didn’t log on at all)-and I need
to be one step ahead of the students!” (MPT2)
Another tutor visualised embracing the virtual culture for both mentor preparation and
ongoing mentor development:
“We need to change the mentor update culture, therefore we need to know about eportfolios to make a web-page for them. Once we’ve broken the habit we’ll be able to
put on mentor development days around a wider scope. For example, we could put
activities on the web and look at inter-professional learning. They could attend a day
then mentors could write a reflection. This could have potential for the KSF
(Knowledge and Skills Framework)” (MTD)
However, one tutor raised concerns about embracing the virtual culture, questioning
the student experience:
“The new style is a good idea but what value do the students place on it? And are the
students ready for it? (MPT3)
There appears to be some hesitancy concerning whether the virtual environment
was, in fact, embracing students as equal stakeholders.
“Having designed activities and tutored these students on-line, I feel we’ve got more
tools in the toolbox to deal with more complex issues” (MPT2)
To prepare them for supporting the students and teaching using electronic methods,
four tutors in the sample had completed, or were in the process of completing an etutoring course. These tutors provided rich information related to how the format of
the course changed their views and approach to working within a virtual culture:
29
“The [e-tutoring] course was very interesting…It’s all virtual, on-line. All the emails
and ‘posts’ were open…It helped me build my portfolio…I understand what the
students are going through to prepare them-and how working with a group on-line is
managed. You only have a week to do a presentation and you’re only given a title. As
for who’s going to do what etc, it’s all on-line” (MPT1)
In the above quote, the respondent articulates the benefits of openness of email
postings to inform her own electronic portfolio. Barriers appeared to occur through
having no face to face contact with team members prior to engaging in group work
using team activities. Another tutor who had undertaken the e-tutoring course
actually indicated that on-line ice breakers were enough to enable contribution to online group discussions:
“Ice-breakers in class and on-line gave time to get to know the group…It helped with
summarising ‘posts’. I can go on-line and pick up the discussion threads…I learnt for
myself… ”(MPT2)
The following quote highlights the necessity for clarity of learning outcomes if
presented on-line:
“When we set up, we’ve got to be mindful of embracing everybody’s learning styles
and learning needs. Also, [the e-tutoring course] wasn’t very organised because of
lack of on-line outcomes. There were too many links so we wasted loads of time. I’d
have liked them to be more prescriptive in week one” (MPT4)
The same tutor described the ‘disembodied’ nature of communicating on-line without
having an indication of who they were communicating with, or even which gender!
“ I hated the course. I got so frustrated!...I didn’t know who I was talking to. With any
e-learning they have to see who they’re talking to…I was talking to disembodied
names. Some of the ‘posts’ were too long and were just tirades. Some were posing”
(MPT4)
The issue of feeling that the person on-line was ‘posing’ and using long posts and
messaging seemed to mitigate against meaningful dialogues occurring. The use of
the word ‘tirade’ indicates that the messaging may have been antagonistic as well as
lengthy.
(ii) Developing digital communities of learning
The tutors sometimes revealed how inspired they were by students’ digital
capabilities:
“It’s much more about lifelong learning rather than the single end of the
course…These students will be much more digitally adept than us…some have their
own blogs and are even developing their own communities of practice” (MPT2)
It was recognised by one tutor, however, that accessibility was not always universal:
“..Blogs could be used but there are access issues” (MPT3)
Having an individual space was seen as progressive, in combination with on-line
discussion groups:
30
“…it’s about making a contribution to the body of knowledge and producing
something to say: ’This is who I am’. It’s also about the student being more
collaborative on-line” (MPT2)
Some concern was expressed regarding anonymity and being ‘faceless’. It is
interesting that the following quote is from the tutor who spoke of frustration at
communicating with ‘disembodied’ names. This had evidently influenced her teaching
style:
“…With team teaching it’s anonymous. Things will change now and we can nurture
the cohort. I’ve got a good knowledge of the cohort now…They know who they’re
talking to and are therefore more ready to share” (MPT4)
The presenting of group feedback by tutors had initially been set up as group
presentations had been given. However, this was not always individual enough:
“We give group feedback but students find it difficult to decide what’s pertinent to
them. Individual feedback is probably better” (MPT3)
The use of an electronic approach to encouraging student reflection within a digital
community was seen by one tutor to have added potential to widen participation of
students:
“This has been a learning curve for me. I’ll have to be quite pro-active. But it’s
something I believe in. One day we may see students by video link only. I am all for
embracing the concept. It allows for widening participation” (MPT4)
(iii) The organic nature of e-portfolio building
An important element in supporting students for the mentoring role involved
encouraging students to engage in ‘live’ discussions and reflections on teaching and
assessing in practice. The following quote provides an excellent vision from a tutor of
the ‘movable’ and organic nature of learning using the electronic medium:
“I don’t see the portfolio as static but a living document. An experience at work builds
into the portfolio, eg using an image, a picture or a photo, or a flow diagram depicting
a train of thought to express the journey…I don’t want it to be linear, but movable,
like a jigsaw, with an elusive piece at the end; a growing thing, like a plant. You can
prune it. You can choose whether you water it or not. Learning expands and
contracts” (MPT4)
Several tutors intimated that the virtual environment should enable self-expression of
the students:
“A sustainable evaluation needs to have a focus on the self. You need to capture the
feelings and barriers” (MPD)
The inclusion of both professional and personal aspects was viewed as positive:
“I[Portfolio-building] means creating an evidence base of what you’ve done and how
you’ve done it-for academic life or personal life-or both” (MPT3)
Importantly, the development of the portfolio using U-Learn was seen as a useful tool
by one tutor, to enable learners to visibly see their learning journey (Williams 2000):
31
“The e-portfolio is an authentic record of their learning, so they can see their journeyand a way of connecting experiences” (MPT2)
(iv) Being an ‘invisible presence’
One tutor alluded to the invisible work of checking students’ on-line engagement and
contributions, or ‘lurking’ as it is known in the virtual world:
“There needs to be a culture change in thinking about ‘contact hours’. Your teaching,
not administration will need to be identified. For example, care is needed with
‘lurking’. And tutors may ‘look in’ on groups they’re not allocated to” (MPT1)
The quote highlights the possible tension with guiding students without spying or
observing interactions without the students’ explicit knowledge of this. There was
also subtle concern that the electronic format provided access to the whole teaching
team.
Interview with E-Learning Unit stakeholder:
The respondent from the E-Learning Unit at the University was asked primarily about
e-learning initiatives across the University, about how students were assisted to
manage their learning, and also how it was envisaged that tutors should be prepared
to teach using the VLE.
(i) Preparing the tutors
The respondent provided useful insights into the benefits of tutors undertaking an etutoring course prior to teaching using a blended approach:
“One of the most powerful things is if tutors have studied on line themselves first. It’s
powerful to understand what it’s like to be a student in the on-line environment. They
can have a ‘shift’ in their head from understanding the issues. It also increases
confidence”. (ELU1)
This ‘shift’ in the tutors’ heads described by the E-Learning respondent is congruent
with the paradigm shift described by some of the tutors themselves.
(ii) Capturing individual student experiences
The respondent suggested that the most effective method for capturing experiences
of e-learners was through use of qualitative methods and through use of voting
electronically:
“There needs to be more talking to learners and one to one contact. With
questionnaires, the qualitative part can be illuminating. There is now the power of evoting as well… Straight away, they could see what everyone else thought” (ELU1)
The respondent indicated that even in questionnaires, the qualitative section was
often the most revealing. This finding is relevant to literature with a focus on ‘student
voice’. To fully capture the student experience, the respondent stressed the
centrality of ‘individual feelings’ in the ELU, saying:
“We deal with the human side” (ELU1)
32
(iii) Provision of technical support
When asked about the more technical aspects for students of managing their
learning through U-Learn, the respondent alluded to the importance of the interface
between IT services and the helpdesk. It was suggested that problems related to
browsers and logging in had reduced through simplifying the technology.
It was felt to be important to ensure that learners received on-line help within 24
hours. Interestingly, a common problem for learners was reported to be management
of time on-line:
“On-line learning still means giving a structure. It may be based on weekly tasks. It’s
not a free-for-all. What are you expecting students to do and in what timeframe? So
students know what’s required of them…Students with families are often better at
managing their time” (ELU1)
The respondent emphasised the need for a thorough induction for each student
undertaking the mentor preparation module, suggesting that it could ‘make or break’
a student’s experience:
“Work was done on the induction for students. More cohorts are going through
therefore there has been some refining as we’ve gone through. One hour in the lab
can increase confidence and knowledge about help that’s available etc. Induction can
make or break a student. The induction is crucial for students, particularly those who
aren’t IT literate. So even if you have an hour with them in the lab, it’s about how you
make sure they leave in that hour happy, confident, positive…knowing where they
can get help…The tutors [module leaders] were very good…very reassuring. And
that sets the tone” (ELU1)
The above quote emphasises the value of face to face contact at the outset in order
to guage reactions of students if new to e-learning.
(iv) Managing the learning journey
The respondent emphasised the importance of the tutors being explicit and
expectations for the module and also conveying all available options to students:
“It’s very useful for the tutor to be explicit about the avenues available. You need to
include a page, early on, that says If you’ve got a problem you can post a message
on the discussion board or email. We’ve had examples where we’ve set up
discussion rooms and absolutely nothing has happened in them at all!”
The respondent went on to stress the importance of providing explicit instructions
and support:
“Be explicit about what the rules and expectations are. You have to model the
practice I think. Bearing in mind that it’s the first time that some students have been
exposed to this type of learning, I think you have to be almost over-explicit, until they
kind of learn the rules for themselves” (ELU1).
To help guide the students through a module delivered through blended learning, the
nature of ‘tips’ necessary to manage the experience was offered:
“Time and structure are important It’s how you design the opportunities that are
there. Everyone will slightly adapt them for their own needs. A range of techniques
33
are needed eg make sure you log on frequently. Just short but frequent logging on.
Generic tips like that” (ELU1)
It is evident that students need to be equipped with a ‘range’ of strategies to assist
building of their portfolios and undertaking group work and projects on-line.
Summary
The interviews with the teachers provided interesting insights into their approaches to
implementing and developing an electronic portfolio with no template. Several tutors
described how they had ‘embraced’ the concept and had moved from traditional
modes of teaching to working within an e-tutoring model. The data provide evidence
that the project objective concerning raised staff understanding of e-portfolios as a
way to engage students meaningfully was largely met. The enthusiasm with which all
the tutors used the ULearn interface to promote deeper learning for students was
commendable.
7.3 Learner mentor biographies
Four mentor learners from the two successful cohorts of 67 students volunteered to
participate in the biographical narrative interview. The settings were varied and
reflect the range of placements offered to students at the University of Surrey. They
comprised:




A district nursing setting (Melanie)
A community mental health setting (Aisha)
A hospice setting (Ruth)
A school nursing setting (Pat) 4
Using thematic content analysis five themes were generated from the interview data:
1 aligning expectations with reality
2 circumventing technological challenges
3 experience of learning within a blended approach
4 strategies for learning and teaching
5 views of a modernised module
These themes are presented in the table below alongside five of the constructivist
learning categories from Jonassen’s (2001) rubric: intentional, contextual,
collaborative, reflective and constructive.
4
All names have been changed to protect identity of the respondents.
34
Content analysis theme
Aligning expectations with
reality
Constructivist learning category (after Jonassen
2001)
Intentional: all human behaviour is goal directed.
The goals are either simple or complex. To achieve
their cognitive goals and meet the module
objectives, the respondents needed to actively and
intentionally align their expectations with reality.
Circumventing technological
challenges
Contextual: Learning is more meaningful and
transferable to new situations if it is situated
authentically. For this reason, the respondents
needed to identify any technological obstacles to
enhance learning within new contexts.
Experience of learning within
a blended approach
Collaborative: Learning occurs through social
support and modelling in knowledge building
communities. The experience of learning within a
blended approach meant the respondents had to
collaborate on learning projects through on-line
cafes and discussion groups.
Strategies for learning
Reflective: articulation of learning from a
technology-based curriculum assists in a fuller
understanding and better use of the knowledge the
learners have constructed in new situations.
Through describing their strategies for learning, the
respondents were reflecting on processes and
decisions which informed their learning.
Views of a modernised
module
Constructive: To make meaning, learners need to
integrate their prior knowledge with new ideas so
they construct their own meaning from different
phenomena
Aligning expectations with reality (Intentional)
As suggested by Jonassen (2001), respondents needed to consider their
biographical learning histories in order to align expectations of the mentor
preparation module with the reality of the actual programme and the challenges of
undertaking new tasks. The cognitive goals (including undertaking a team
assignment) and the intentionality involved, were displayed in various ways across
this data set:
Because Melanie’s training as an enrolled nurse had not involved teaching, she
described feeling as if she had ‘missed the loop’.
35
I feel I missed the loop because enrolled nurse training in 1982 didn’t sort of
encompass looking after students… I never really understood it through the eyes of
the student nurse. ..So it was very sort of hit and miss (Melanie p6, part 2)
Melanie’s expectations, however, differed from reality as she was unaware that the
module had been re-designed:
But it wasn’t until we got here that the tutor said that they’d re-designed it and within
the course I think they called it U-learning? And so I was a bit worried because I
haven’t got huge computer skills and I was worried that I’d be struggling on it. So ur I
was quite frightened about doing it really (Melanie BNI).
Aisha vocalised performing teaching on ‘auto pilot’ prior to undertaking the
mentorship module:
…when you’re in practice for a long time without studying you get used to the way
you do things and you don’t necessarily, you do a lot of it on auto pilot, especially
with regards to your teaching. You had like a student shadow you and I don’t think I
thought about it as much as I did when I did the course… (Aisha BNI)
Aisha also described her intentional, goal-directed approach as a participant
constructing her own learning:
…but I guess it’s reinforcing the fact that you’ve got a lot to learn yourself, you’re
always on a learning curve and I guess its important to kind of ensure you’re kind of
directing that and not just kind of going along with day to day stuff…(Aisha)
Ruth was a little more critical of the pre-course computer literacy preparation and
described how her goals had not met with the module objectives:
We did have a questionnaire about computer literacy and what we knew about
computers. Um Mine’s basic. I can cope-but only just. So I’d have appreciated
perhaps a bit more of that and might have gone on the computer more before I
started. (Ruth p1)
The following respondent (Pat) highlights the importance of a mentor to help align
expectations of all involved and to assist in realistic goal setting. This is to avoid
feeling ‘thrown in’ to challenging teaching situations:
And I also feel that because of [tutors’] perceptions, I was thrown in at the deep end
with the student and just left to get on with her and not have the experience of an
SPT [Specialist Practice Teacher] really, close to hand, to help me through the
course. I was just left to get on with it. (Pat P2)
The above quote was from Pat, who described immense difficulties she had
experienced when mentoring one student in practice. Pat had evidently expected far
more hands-on support and therefore expressed disappointment.
Circumventing technological challenges (Contextual)
The nature of the technology-led emphasis in the new module meant that the
learners needed access to software such as ‘Java’ and compatible hardware. This
was not always easily obtainable. Melanie described her anxiety related to work
getting ‘lost’ in the ether:
36
…I couldn’t download the Java so I couldn’t use it at work. I had to use it at (pause)
home. So I had to ask my son to sort it out for me, to make my computer compatible
to the University’s. So that was all a bit anxious for me but we managed to sort it
out…And that was another thing because the Java wasn’t acceptable in the format
that I had on my computer… [I was] worried that work had got lost in some sort of
black hole (Melanie BNI3)
Technical support from the E-Learning Centre was evidently available and useful:
But as time went on-and um there was quite a lot of support from the tutors and one
of the chaps that designed the um U-learning sort of computer system, I felt a lot
more happy about it. (Melanie BNI1)
Other respondents also described challenges of ‘parking’ of assignments on-line.
I got a bit confused with parking assignments and retrieving them. And actually there
was a fault with that because we were able to get everybody’s essays and things at
one point. I think that was then rectified. Because I couldn’t park mine, my modules,
um essays. It just wouldn’t park. And I found that really difficult. not a positive thing (.)
from it. (Ruth)
The contextual elements were intrinsic to these students’ learning. As found in the
literature, the asynchronous nature of communicating on-line was not always
conducive to vibrant discussion within internet cafes:
The things about the U-learn, that has provoked a lot of agitation I think, a lot of
anxiety in the beginning especially… I enjoyed that side of it, but I think it’s about
anxiety if people couldn’t get onto a computer and that had an impact on our group
work. So several times there was only me actually on it doing some work, myself
and one other person. Pat P3
Greenberg (2004) suggests that, to avoid isolation (perceived by three out of four
students) network communication tools need to be both synchronous and
asynchronous. The virtual learning environment at the University proved to be a
double edged sword. Pat describes the value of the VLE for group work and
individual searching, but not assessment:
I found U-learn very helpful for the initial things that we did in the teaching. For
instance, in our group work we chose motivation and it was very, very useful. Things
were put on the U-learn site for us to go in or we did our own searches on the
internet and that was very, very useful…When it came to assessment though, I don’t
remember U-learn being very helpful at all really. There didn’t seem to be anything
on there that was particularly helpful,…
(Pat p10, part 2).
As described earlier, Pat had been influenced by a negative incident with a student
and therefore seemed to view assessment as a barrier to learning using technology.
Experience of learning within a blended approach (Collaborative)
As found with the e-portfolio system used at Wolverhampton University (‘Pebble
Pad’), the on-line community used the digital format as an electronic reflection and
communication tool. The following quotes provide information about the actual
experience of blended learning, which is rather sparse across the literature :
37
It wasn’t just about computer systems. We had to come in and have some taught
sessions which I thought were really good and really up to date. And I thought there
was plenty of time to get the work in. And I thought with the people on the course
there was a really good mix of people. You got ..rather than having just one type of
nurse you know from one area. So there was a really good mixture which kind of
enriched the team.(Melanie)
Melanie provides information about how she managed her time on-line:
Because we had our little group given to us. And we all agreed to go um on-line at 8
o’clock in the evening and have a chat, like a web chat about what we were going to
do this presentation on and I sat there-8 o’clock, went on line and there was nobody
there ( Melanie part 2)
The above quote provides evidence of the challenges for some mature students in
undertaking group work asynchronously. Aisha appeared to work in a group with a
different approach to on-line discussions:
…the e-learning, I think we could have made more use of it, like my group made,
because …you could discuss your group work and we utilised it quite well but that
was because most of the group had access to it so people checked on it quite a
lot…(Aisha)
Ruth described some of the barriers and frustrations inherent in attempting to
communicate on-line:
The other thing as regards using U-Learn. You were put into groups to do a
presentation. I found that extremely difficult a) because I was out of the area and b)
because no-one was on line the same time as I was… And I think I sent about 30
emails and didn’t get any replies for a long time. So trying to formulate a presentation
with the rest of the group was difficult…Working shifts isn’t conducive to being in
contact at a certain time of day, really (Ruth).
What appeared to compensate for this, was the immediacy of tutor support from the
University:
Tutors did respond to emails. I was surprised that someone could respond that
quickly. Almost spontaneously really. They seemed to be on line all different times of
day and night. Which is quite reassuring really. And gave you know, positive. You
know, that feedback. And helpful. Answered the questions really that were asked.
That was good. Yeh…I think (.) the staff were very supportive (Ruth).
Pat, who was probably more used to presenting independently in the community,
described how positively her group ‘gelled’:
The teaching side I really enjoyed. I enjoyed all of the group work that we did and we
had to get into groups and do a presentation and I think I enjoyed that, probably
because in my role I do do lots of presentations anyway…I think also in our group we
were quite lucky, although it was randomly, we seemed to gel really easily and
seemed to get on very well, so that was good (Pat)
Strategies for learning and teaching (Reflective)
As found in the literature (particularly that related to views of trainee teachers), quite
intense preparation was required prior to students using technology for the first time
38
(Woodward and Nanlohy 2002, Scholes 2004, Butler 2006). Tensions with attempting
to ‘cope’ with new technologies are evident in the following quote:
I’ve got to move on with the technology because I can’t communicate and move my
knowledge forward if I don’t start using the new technology. So I have this sort of
push me, pull me feeling about how I cope. Melanie, P2
Ruth described how the face to face teaching compensated for her lack of
technological confidence:
The actual lectures and things were excellent. I felt really supported (.) They were
taught really well I felt. Um. There was a lot of humour involved. And that’s how I
learn…Um. Certainly the hand-outs and the reading lists that we got were excellent.
And I gained a lot from that. I think more role play in the module would be good.
(Ruth p2)
Ruth went on to share how confidence in technology to assist formal presentations
had increased, adding that the blended approach used at the University had
triggered using new approaches to assess students in practice:
So I’ve developed in the fact I can use computers better, despite all the hiccups.
Y’know I could do a Powerpoint and even get the bits coming in from the side and all
the other bits. So that’s been of value and I can use that in my teaching…And we’ve
altered our approach to students to their evaluation…I’m more of a practical teacher I
think, rather than a theoretical one…But I’ve certainly learnt the the research and the
knowledge behind it now. I think that’s the value. (Ruth, part 2)
Aisha described how reflection was informing her own teaching style:
[I] selected the information according to what [the student is] more likely to come
across rather than something that’s kind of common, so it would be useful to her… I
structured it in relation to [the mental state examination] to make it more meaningful
to her… (Aisha p2, part 1)
The individuality of the students was being encompassed to provide a relevant
practicum for the student and to also influence her divergent thinking:
…all students are different and they’ll bring something and make you think in a
different way…(Aisha P8, part 2)
Pat described how the module had influenced her approaches to the student at the
outset of the mentoring relationship:
So I think it’s taught me about preparation, how to start off a programme in the
beginning, how to approach your student, make her feel comfortable, make her feel
part of the team, make her feel valued, those type of things really (Pat P18)
The following quote demonstrates some empathy for the students on their journey or
‘passage’:
It does make you feel about how it is to be a student as well, that sort of passage into
the profession; and it does help you think about the objectivity of the assessment
process as well, and also there’s no ideal assessment, I don’t think, anyway.(Pat,
p21, part 2)
39
Views of a modernised module (Constructivist)
As suggested by Jonassen (2001) students need to combine their prior knowledge
with new ideas, in order to construct meaning for future learning. The following
quotes show some the ways the respondents in this sample constructed both
meaning and new knowledge following completion of the module:
But I think it was a positive, um not transformation of the course but a sort of
modernisation of the course probably. Because I think that every nurse has got to be
a mentor. If you’re still working with old paperwork and not moving forward..then
we’re not going to keep up with up to date practice…And I think the way forward is
using the internet and using the computer…to enhance your knowledge…And it’s
much more cost effective..having it on the computer based than it is having it in
books and journals and things stored in a library that take up a lot of room.(Melanie)
The benefits to mentors and students of a blended learning approach are suggested
by Melanie in the following quote:
And I’ve had two students out with me since and I feel that I’ve known exactly what
they’re supposed to be achieving …in their training. And um I feel much closer to the
University if I had a problem with them… I think the student nurses have actually got
quite a good deal really. They’re a lot more supported than they were a few years
ago. (Melanie)
Aisha describes how the e-portfolio had become a tool to help her build significance
and extract meaning from her individual reflections:
…what I’m doing towards my portfolio is, there’s more volume of it, as in I’m doing it
more often than I did …there’s no point doing it for the sake of it but it has to be
related to something kind of significant and meaningful. But certainly got me back
into doing them.(Aisha)
She also relayed how making learning relevant and meaningful for the learner had
become important in her teaching and mentoring:
..it’s making it meaningful, making it relevant and that the learner is more likely to
take on that information if it is meaningful, that’s where that’s based in the theory that
was taught (Aisha).
Ruth suggests that mentoring ‘officially’ means providing a package ‘properly’ for the
students, combining theoretical principles and practical teaching strategies, gleaned
both on-line and through face to face teaching and discussions:
The teaching methods that we learnt (.) have helped me sort of when I’m now back at
work um and started to mentor officially if you like not in a supportive way but um do
it properly as you should, with the students that we have here. Plus with all the staff
so hopefully it will be beneficial for the future.(Ruth p2)
40
Summary
The selected data presented here provide insights into how a blended learning
approach was applied within authentic contexts of learning for four mentor trainees
who undertook the module between September 2006 and March 2007. The
biographical narrative interview method enabled contextual detail to be shared which
may otherwise have remained hidden. The mini-narratives provided rich data which
demonstrate the challenges and successes in portfolio-building using a virtual
learning environment (VLE). Key findings from in-depth interviews with mentor
trainees were:






The importance of technical preparation for the programme prior to using ULearn;
The need for continuing support of teaching in practice, to avoid being ‘thrown
in at the deep end with the student’;
The valuing of tutors engaging with students individually and promptly via ULearn;
The need for web-based discussions to be planned and purposeful;
A prompt to use the personalised interface for continued reflective writing and
finally;
The personal and professional growth that was verbalised through the linking
of theory and practice using a virtual space.
It was a significant finding that all respondents described how the module helped
shape their thinking ‘in a different way’ and helped to change their ‘approach’ to
students, thereby making the learning experience more ‘meaningful’ and ‘relevant’ for
the learner. The mentors were both learners and teachers when they undertook this
module, which puts them in a unique position. These findings therefore contribute to
current knowledge about use of constructivist learning environments to enhance the
practice of teaching. The following section is a discussion which brings the various
data sources from this project together.
41
8.0 Discussion
As stated in the Background section of this report, the Mentorship Module provides a
large proportion of CPD in the Division of health and Social Care (formerly the
EIHMS) training approximately 400 qualified health care professionals each year to
become mentors in practice. The NMC standards for mentors practice teachers and
teachers (2006) place increasing responsibilities on mentors to sign off student
nurses and student midwives as competent and safe to practise and qualify on the
professional register. How the mentor preparation module is delivered is therefore of
key importance. How the learners managed their learning using the University VLE
was obviously highly individualised and the results are not intended to be
generalised. However, there were some common themes and patterns which
emerged across the data set.
The blended approach was found to enhance learning by some students. However,
technological ‘hitches’ constrained some students, who were not familiar with weblanguage and who did not even own their own personal computer prior to the module
commencing (for example, Melanie). It should be noted that some students attending
Day One of the module had never sent an email prior to registering for the module.
This is relevant with regards to Laurillard’s (2005) views about technology
interrupting the actual learning process and the importance of tutors’ awareness of
student’s prior experience with technology (Curry 2008). Other students (for
example, Aisha) worked within a mental health therapeutic model and showed skills
in constructing meaning from a more inter-actionist approach during discussions online and ‘postings’ throughout the module.
For students in cohorts one and two, who undertook the new Mentorship module,
they were able to experience the synergy of collaborative electronic learning and
many engaged enthusiastically. However, it was assumed that all students had
computers at home (that were readily accessible to them). Additionally it was
presumed by teaching and support staff that all students were able to access Java,
both in the workplace and at home. The in-depth data from four biographical
interviews indicate that, if working in community settings, ownership of this
technological equipment and programmes was not uniform.
It is interesting that the induction was seen by the e-learning unit as a significant
component to supporting students at the outset of the mentor preparation module,
yet this was not mentioned by the tutors. There is evidence that the e-Learning unit,
in collaborating with IT services, provide an umbrella of support for both students and
tutors. Equal emphasis appears to have been placed on technological and ‘human’ or
psychological aspects of electronic learning. The data from this study provides
evidence of the need for sustained support for students throughout a module with
extra provision in the early stages.
Deepening of student engagement in their learning was described by some students
but this took an enormous commitment from both the teaching team and E-Learning
support team. The two cohort leaders were very enthusiastic and evidently
committed to supporting the students. This almost led to ‘lurking’ as it became
difficult to be ‘hands off’ with such varied learning needs in each group. The etutoring course was not popular with all tutors but did appear to prepare the tutors for
the realities of communicating to an unknown audience and feeling, at times,
‘disembodied’ during on-line discussions and chat-rooms. One of the project’s
objectives was to: Increase staff understanding and capacity of e-portfolios as a way
to engage students in a meaningful learning experience. The evidence from
interviewing five tutors shows that this objective was certainly met. The introduction
of U-Learn was seen as positive within months because tutors recognised that it
42
opened up ‘live’ channels of communication for direct engagement with the students.
There is a possibility, however, that some students become overly dependent on the
tutors’ virtual presence as a comfort blanket.
As asserted by Roberts (2007), there has been substantial technologising of
language in the last decade. Whilst progressive in many respects, the data indicate
that this can be constraining for some students new to this style of learning. This may
be particularly challenging to mature learners in the health care professions.
Laurillard (2007) asserts that tangible ‘flags’ are required to assist students. These
could be in the form of on-line key words, reminders and links.
A common theme across the data from students collected for this project centred on
learners feeling isolated. Whilst asynchronous networking and communicating is
viewed as the panacea (Greenberg 1998), the lack of synchrony for discussions and
group work led to feelings of isolation for a number of students. Strengthening of
creative channels of communication using virtual media is evidently required, using
an e-profile model, for example Gomez (2004). The e-profile system enabled
students to be tracked and guided remotely. This showed benefits for student support
on long placements and therefore has potential to be modified for use with students
on professional placements at the University of Surrey. One challenge for mentors
preparing for the role is that a range of models of mentoring operate across the NHS
Trusts affiliated with the University (Finnerty et al, 2004). Additionally, the length of
student placements varies considerably.
Although this disparity in placement length and clinical contexts exist, this evaluation
provides evidence of the potential for University –wide e-portfolio model to be crafted,
to promote meaningful, reflective learning and conversations within a personalised
virtual space. The literature confirms the possibilities that can be realised to promote
an enhanced learning environment for both the practice of teaching and lifelong
learning. Examples from the literature and empirical data are:

Promotion of collaborative learning

Provision of new spaces for reflection and feedback

A space to build a longitudinal record of achievement (including mentor
passports and records of teaching incidents)

A display of authentic (performance) assessments in the field (Mullen et al.
2002) and an exhibition of significant learning and teaching episodes through
multi-media, for example, audio, text, video, photos and images.

Opportunities for career planning
Despite ongoing, exciting advances in digital portfolios, pedagogical considerations
are required. As it was not possible to take a portfolio ‘off the shelf’ in this instance,
the mentor students had to construct their portfolio without a template. For the future,
this means either considering a rubric such as that created by Jonassen (2001) or
using formalised, specific sections in the e-portfolio for journaling, submitting
assignments and collaborating on line, as advocated by Lawson et al. (2004) in their
e-portfolio for health professionals.
43
8.1 Reflection on the evaluation methods
Although the nominal group technique is commonly used to evaluate modules and
programmes, tensions appeared to occur through agreeing on group statements
which did not entirely reflect individual experience. The ease with which students
engaged with U-Learn seemed to be largely dependent on each student’s confidence
and prior experience with e-technologies. It was therefore challenging to make
general statements which were inclusive of the group’s views.
The e-voting component of the module evaluation was introduced in a fun ‘Who
Wants to be a Millionaire?’ format. The immediacy of visual results was found to be
attractive, as was the novelty value and the anonymity. Informally, the students
described their pleasure at being able to see the whole group’s response to each
question. It is important to note that all students engaged with this part of the module
evaluation. This is in contrast to the nominal group voting in which only about one
third of the students actively contributed.
The interviews with tutors were relatively short but very focused. The most interesting
data emerged from those tutors who had completed the e-tutoring course. One
cohort leader admitted that her negativity to the ‘faceless’ activities had led her to
adopt a more ‘nurturing’ presence for her cohort. The passion displayed by both
cohort leaders to make the new module a success was evident and appeared to
have cascaded to the other tutors in the Mentorship module team.
The biographical interview method proved useful to tease out specific elements
which were found to block or enhance the four respondents’ e-learning experiences.
However, the actual process of interviewing in the workplace and transcribing lengthy
interviews was extremely time-intensive. For example, it took the evaluator 22 hours
to transcribe two taped interviews. The benefits were that the process informed the
analysis of data and meant that constructivist characteristics emerging from
Jonassen’s rubric (2001) could be applied.
44
9.0 Conclusions and recommendations
The overall conclusion for the evaluation was that there was a need to build an eportfolio of learning products meaningful to the student, customising teaching
approaches, to include e-learning strategies so as to align the world of the student
with the learning task at hand. The project has shown the value of using a
participatory approach to design a personalised learning space for trainee health
care mentors.
Conclusions are presented below, with corresponding recommendations in boxes:
The Student Experience
Many students made positive comments about the new module, for example,
suggesting that the module design enhanced both professional and personal
development and was empowering.
Recommendations
 Continuation plans for use of U-Learn could be put in place for self-selecting
students. Provision of ‘Pebble Pad’ has potential to promote sustainable
communities of practice on-line.
 The Mentor Preparation module handbook and pre-course reading need to be
revised in light of the varied stages and e-learning capabilities of students
embarking on the module.
 Guidelines need to be presented which are commensurate with students’
computer literacy levels. This should include a glossary of ‘digital’ terms, for
example: Asynchronous discussion, ‘parking’, ‘lurking’ discussion ‘threads’,
etc
Some students expressed the need for extra sessions in the computer laboratory to
practice skills such as logging on and downloading or uploading information.
Recommendations
 A time management mini-workshop could be considered, to assist learners to
manage their time on-line and maximise their productivity and outputs. This
would leave more time for reflective activities to enhance learning.
 More opportunities for asynchronous discussions would benefit those
practitioners who work shift patterns and live a distance from the University.
 Preparation for parking and retrieving assignments needs to be supported
with written, verbal and on-line information to prevent student anxiety and fear
of work disappearing into a ‘black hole’ (Melanie).
Students indicated that individual feedback on their work was crucial to them as adult
learners, training to teach in complex practice arenas. How feedback is presented is
obviously of relevance to trainee mentors who will be influenced by methods which
may enhance their own teaching practice.
45
Recommendations
 Provision of individual feedback to students needs to be built in by tutors as it
is evidently of far more value and relevance than generic feedback following
group work.

Attention to feedback mechanisms is necessary so that there is equity in
provision to students and also tutor workload. This needs to be inclusive of
extrinsic and intrinsic features and must also be ‘impactful’ for the learner
(Gibbs 2004)
Due to lack of familiarity with the technology involved in this approach to learning and
assessment, students displayed varying levels of confidence with regards to on-line
discussions.
Recommendations
 Virtual action learning groups could be established on Day Five of the
module. This would encourage students who felt their learning styles to be
compatible to self-select into peer groups to take their ‘live’ discussions
forward into practice.
 Traditional module evaluation methods need to be replaced with valid and
reliable tools that will help build upon a body of evidence to support
pedagogical development for e-supported personalised learning.
The Tutor Experience
The e-tutoring course was found to be generally not an enjoyable experience but
extremely valuable to provide insights into realities of teaching and learning within
virtual learning environments. Feeling ‘disembodied’ was found to block
discussion and learning by one tutor (MPT4).
Recommendations
 To enhance learning and optimise on-line communications, it is evident that a
balance with face-to-face communication is needed.
 ‘Hidden’ time for provision of informal student support needs to be built into
future timetables for tutors who use a blended learning approach.
The cohort leaders confessed to going the extra mile by attending to extra emails
from students, troubleshooting and ‘lurking’ in their own time. Provision of student
log-in numbers, for example, was found to be very time-consuming but was not
registered as a teaching activity.
Recommendation
 Use of a blended approach to present such a module at least ten times per
year evidently involves hidden time, which needs to be valued and supported.
46
The lack of a template for the e-portfolio was found to create apprehension for some
tutors initially. Although one cohort leader admitted to being a ‘good spin doctor’, the
tutors appreciated being able to make cohort-dependent adjustments to the module
quickly.
Recommendations
 A rubric could be adapted specifically for use of the Mentorship module
 Consideration needs to be given by programme developers who wish to
develop personalised learning through e-learning technologies as to how best
to structure the student learning journey, inclusive of a route map.
Summary
The deepening of learning through creation of a reflective virtual portfolio has
potential to:

improve the learning environments in practice and

increase employability profiles for mentors
Jonassen’s rubric (2001) for assessing constructivist learning environments provided
a successful underpinning model to analyse the data. It was important to tease out
what contributed to or prevented meaningful learning from taking place. It is
suggested this model has potential to provide a framework to underpin evaluative
comments from all stakeholders:
a) Tutors would have a tried and test framework to construct e-learning
programmes using a VLE. This is ideally suited to a blended approach
because the constructivist rubric has also been used successfully to guide
classroom discussions (Jonassen 2001, Williams, 2000).
b) Students could use the rubric as a reflective tool to aid construction of
meaning from their learning.
c) The rubric has assisted assessment of portfolios, helping reduce subjectivity
and enhance inter-rater reliability.
Finally, the evaluation data have shown some significant benefits for both student
mentors and their tutors through co-designing a module using a virtual learning
environment such as U-Learn. It is encouraging that tutors described having “more
tools in the toolbox” (MPT 2) and several students described how their learning had
become more “meaningful” and relevant to inform the practice of mentoring. An
essential component to deepening the learning appears to be tailored support for
students to develop an authentic on-line identity and subsequently a dynamic
personalised learning space.
47
APPENDIX ONE
Dissemination of project findings

One paper has been presented in France, at the Blackboard World
Conference, February, 2007.

A poster was presented at the Festival of Teaching and Learning, University
of Surrey, 2008.

A series of articles has been planned, using a practitioner inquiry approach

National and international conferences will be attended and abstracts for
papers submitted

Within the University, there will be involvement in the E-Learning
Practitioners Network. A lunchtime seminar is being prepared. This will help
to maintain strong links with CLD and the E-Learning Centre.

A summary of the project will be provided for the ‘Supporting E-learning’
booklet.
48
REFERENCES
Ashcroft D.M and Hall J (2006) Pharmacy students’ attitudes and views about
portfolio-based learning: A questionnaire survey. Pharmacy Education, 6 (1) pp 1-5.
Butler P (2006) A Review of the Literature on Portfolios and Electronic Portfolios.
http://creative commons.org/licences/by-nc—sa/2.5/. Accessed June 2007.
Campbell MI and Schmidt KJ (2005) Polaris: An undergraduate online system that
encourages personal reflection and career planning. International Journal of
Engineering Education. 21 (5), pp931-942.
Cambridge B (2001) Electronic Portfolios: Emerging Practices in Student, Faculty
and Institutional Learning. AAHE
Cambridge B (2004) Electronic Portfolios: Why Now? Educause Live, American
Association for Higher Education Accessed June 2007.
Cayne J (1997) Portfolios: A Developmental Influence? In: Research into Practice; A
Reader. P. Abbott and R. Sapsford (Eds). Open University Press, Buckingham &
Philadelphia.
Cotterill SJ, McDonald AM, Drummond P (2004) Managed Environments for
Portfolio-based Reflection. www.eportfolios.ac.uk/FDTL4/docs/. Accessed
07.04.2005
Darling L.F. (2001) Portfolio as practice: the narratives of emerging teachers.
Teaching and Teacher Education 17 pp107-121.
Driessen E, van Tartwijk J, Overeem K (2005) Conditions for successful use of
reflective portfolios in undergraduate medical education. Medical Education. 39 (12)
pp1230-1235.
Gardner, H (1993) Multiple intelligences: The theory in practice. New York: Basic
Books, p85.
Gardner, H (1987, May) Beyond I.Q.: Education and human development Harvard
Educational Review 57 (2) pp187-193.
Garrett B, Jackson C (2006) A mobile clinical e-portfolio for nursing and medical
students, using wireless personal digital assistants (PDAs) Nurse Education Today
(In press).
Georgi D, Crowe J (1998) Digital Portfolios: A Confluence of Portfolio Assessment
and Technology. Teacher Education Quarterly, Winter, pp 1-10.
Greenberg G (2004) Extending the Portfolio Model. Educause Review, July, pp 2836.
Haig A (2007) NES e-portfolios, NHS Education for Scotland (Poster presentation at
HEA Festival of Learning, April)
49
Hennessy S, Howes AM (2004) Using ePortfolios to Assess Reflective Capabilities of
Medical Students. Paper presented at ‘e-portfolio conference in La Rochelle, 2004.
Jonassen D.H. (2001) Design of constructivist learning environments
http://www.coe.missouri.edu/~jonassen/courses/CLE/index.html (Accessed 2005)
Kilpatrick B (2007) A review of literature concerning e-portfolio use and
implementation Draft document, pp1-25.
Laurillard D. (2005) Rethinking University Teaching. A conversational framework for
the effective use of learning technologies London and New York: Routledge Falmer.
Lorenzo G, Ittelson J (2005) An Overview of E-Portfolios. Educause Learning
Initiative pp 10-21.
McKenzie JF, Cleary MJ, McKenzie BL (2002) E-Portfolios: Their Creation and Use
by Pre-Service Health Educators. The International Electronic Journal of Health
Education (4) pp 79-83.
Mason R, Pegler C, Weller M (2004) E-portfolios: an assessment tool for on-line
courses. British Journal of Educational Technology. 35 (6) pp717-727.
Scholes J, Webb C, Gray M (2001) Issues and Innovations in Nursing Education:
Making portfolios work in practice. Journal of Advanced Nursing 46 (6) pp595-687.
Webb C, Endacott R, Gray M (2002) Models of portfolios. Medical Education. 36 (10)
pp897-898.
Williams M (2000) Discussion and Reflection Evaluation Rubric. Department of
Character Education, School of Education, San Diego.
Woodward H, Nanlohy P (2002) Digital Portfolios; Fact of Fashion?
www.aare.edu.au/02pap/woo02363.html. Accessed 07.04.2005
50