impact of e-portfolios on teacher assessment and …...impact of e-portfolios on teacher assessment...

Impact of e-portfolios on teacher assessment and studentperformance on learning science concepts in kindergarten

Kawthar M. Habeeb1& Ali H. Ebrahim1

Received: 3 August 2018 /Accepted: 4 December 2018 /Published online: 19 December 2018# Springer Science+Business Media, LLC, part of Springer Nature 2018

AbstractThis study examines the existing literature on information and communication tech-nology and establishes that although there is a strong potential for these resources togenerate improved student science concepts outcomes, many teachers fail to recognizethat potential. The study then presents qualitative data acquired from teacher question-naires, which identifies strong positive correlations among student performance, stu-dent self-assessment, and teacher assessment in cases where kindergarten-level educa-tional tasks were presented through e-portfolios. Discussion of these findings suggeststhat the existing institutional pressures for e-portfolio adoption are well-justified andcould result in improved student outcomes, as well as a higher instance of self-directedlearning both at school and at home. The authors also conclude that ongoing imple-mentation of these resources in early childhood education, together with relevantteacher training and parent engagement, may naturally overcome lingering resistanceby certain stakeholders to the project of adopting these technologies.

Keywords Assessment- e-portfolios . Children classes . Teaching and learning . Scienceconcepts

1 Introduction

The following literature review examines prevalent ideas about the impact of e-portfolios,as well as the existing levels of interest in and commitment to the use of these resourcesamong teachers and other stakeholders. The subsequent study strives to evaluate whetherpositive attitudes and positive expectations regarding the resource are justified in the

Education and Information Technologies (2019) 24:1661–1679https://doi.org/10.1007/s10639-018-9846-8

* Kawthar M. [email protected]; [email protected]

Ali H. [email protected]

1 Faculty of Education, Kuwait University, Kuwait City, Kuwait

http://crossmark.crossref.org/dialog/?doi=10.1007/s10639-018-9846-8&domain=pdf

http://orcid.org/0000-0001-9074-5839

mailto:[email protected]

mailto:[email protected]

context of kindergarten-level science education. It is understood that this represents only aportion of the broader scope of inquiry, but it is presented as a logical starting point forfurther research into the impact of e-portfolios, given the foundational significance of bothkindergarten-level education and basic STEM concepts in a twenty-first century educa-tional setting. It is assumed that if research at this level, involving this content area, supportsthe establishment of programs involving e-portfolios, then there will be grounds for closerexamination of e-portfolios’ application to other content areas, at higher grade levels.

1.1 Literature review

Traditional student portfolios represent a potentially powerful tool for both teachers andlearners. By collecting and reexamining work that has been generated over a particularperiod of time, students are afforded an opportunity for more thorough self-assessment,as well as more detailed and nuanced communications with teachers and fellowstudents regarding the portfolio contents and resulting assessments (Anagün et al.2018). The process of collection and assessment can be seen as putting classroomstudies and activities into a larger context, whereby students and teachers can mutuallytrack progress and understand the development that has taken place. These reflectiveprocedures arguably exhibit particular importance in the case of early childhoodeducation, wherein development may occur rapidly and children’s perception ofmeaningful personal progress may have a particularly substantial long-term impacton their knowledge and approaches to learning.

There now appears to be general recognition of three main types of e-portfolio. Abramiand Barrett (2005) identify the first of these as a portfolio in which the focus is on theprocess of learning. This is student-focused and includes students reflecting, evaluatingand interacting with their peers and the teacher in giving and receiving feedback. Thesecond type of portfolio is a showcase portfolio in which the purpose is to demonstratecompetence and achievements. The emphasis here is on showing, rather than evaluating,and on the product rather than the process of learning. The third kind is used in preparationfor some kind of assessment, and the focus is on external evaluation or judgment. Thisgenerally includes authentic assessment and involves widely recognized assessmentcriteria such as graduation outcomes, registration and accreditation standards.

In light of the functions and prospective benefits of portfolio usage, twenty-firstcentury teachers and educational institutions have the opportunity to consider e-portfolios as alternative resources that fill the same role while adding new elementsof information and communication technology (ICT). An e-portfolio is an electronictool that teachers may use in order to better understand how young children developand learn, and to assess a student’s progress. With content tools that are appropriate to agiven grade level and the defined needs of the teacher or assessor, children can use e-portfolios to create or upload digital content that reflects their understanding of recentlylearned concepts. Effective use of e-portfolios may also comprise a tool for personalreflection, thereby encouraging children to present work in front of classmates, to helpscaffold one another’s learning, and to communicate with one another about relevantmaterials, either online or in the classroom.

From a certain perspective, the expansion of ICT-enriched classrooms is valuable initself, because it exploits the established technological habits and interests of students,so as to encourage more engagement with classroom resources. But whether or not this

1662 Education and Information Technologies (2019) 24:1661–1679

hypothesis is substantiated, e-portfolios do represent a wider range of potential appli-cations than traditional portfolios. As Karlin et al. (2016) observed, e-portfolios haveallowed for the process of student reflection and self-evaluation to move beyond theclassroom and into what Churcher et al. (2014) have described as a virtual communityof practice.

There are also signs that the resource could have an impact on pedagogy and teacherpractice, if only in the event that they are implemented in an informed manner, in thewake of teacher training. Abrami and Barrett (2005) describe e-portfolio as a Bdigitalcontainer capable of strong visual and auditory content including text, images, video andsound,^ adding that they Borganize content, but also they are designed to support avariety of pedagogical processes and assessment purposes.^ (p. 2) This supports Wray’s(2007) observation that in teacher training, e-portfolios raise issues including the bestways to integrate them into teacher learning, how to work with the underpinningpedagogies, and how best to support and assess teacher learning using the newtechnology.

But before resolving these issues of best practice, there are more basic consider-ations to be addressed by the relevant literature. The traditional benefits of portfoliosand the additional benefits of e-portfolio raise questions about teacher attitudes andteacher preparedness regarding the adjustment of their classroom practice to accom-modate ICT resources in general and e-portfolios in particular. Furthermore, stake-holders might question whether positive attitudes regarding e-portfolio are justified interms of student engagement and student outcomes. And assuming that this is the case,stakeholders might also wonder how about how more traditionally-minded teacherscould be encouraged to embrace and effectively implement ICT and e-portfolio. Theexisting literature goes a long way toward answering questions regarding currentattitudes among teachers and other stakeholders, while the current study seeks toexamine how the adoption of e-portfolios actually impacts student performance, teacherpractice, and assessments of progress within the classroom.

The overwhelming impression that one obtains from a review of the literature is thatthere are significant institutional pressures in favor of the adoption of ICT resources, ofwhich e-portfolio is one. It also appears that there is a great deal of receptiveness to thispressure, which is observed among teachers, students, and parents alike. In a studyinvolving the assessment process for young children, Tsirika et al. (2017) provide apositive depiction of all stakeholders’ attitudes toward use of e-portfolios. Theirfindings indicate that children faced no difficulties in adopting the e-portfolio and thatall wanted to continue using it beyond the period of the study. Furthermore, the studyidentifies a high degree of parental enthusiasm for the technology, leading to parentalcontributions to its ongoing use. Moreover, this use reportedly facilitated higher-qualitystudent-teacher interactions, which increased student motivation for self-assessments.

Notably, these higher-quality interactions work in both directions, and are notlimited to interactions that take place inside the walls of the classroom. E-portfolioscan exist outside an online learning system or they can be embedded within it. In atestament to institutional pressures affecting e-portfolios and the virtual community ofpractice, many proprietary online learning platforms (for example module, blackboardand web CT) are currently working to include this facility within their offerings. Forteacher educators, this more diffuse communication has proven to be attractive becauseit allows for the thinking processes to be fully encapsulated within a portfolio. This

Education and Information Technologies (2019) 24:1661–1679 1663

includes analysis, reflection, planning and evaluation that accompanies the portfoliocollection, all of which exhibit potential for development of habits that last aftergraduation (Zeichner and Wray 2001).

Students apparently tend to recognize similarly positive features of e-portfolios, andthis seemingly influences their own contributions to higher-quality communications. Intheir investigation of e-portfolios as a tool for the development of self-reflection,Pelliccione et al. (2005) found students valued the way in which their portfolios Bcameto life and mirrored the individual’s personality and traits^ (p.533) which resulted ingreater commitment by the student to self-reflection on their personal and professionalgrowth and clearer links by them between their teaching artifacts and the programoutcomes and attributes. This student feedback helps all types of e-portfolios to besuccessful in fulfilling one of their central roles: facilitating development of teachers asreflective practitioners. Much of the attention now being paid to e-portfolios arisesbecause of recognition of the value of their underlying pedagogies, which have alwaysbeen a part of portfolio pedagogies.

According to Butler (2006), student-teacher interactions may be further improved bye-portfolios by virtue of their capacity for promoting ICT skill development, facilitatingfeedback, fostering a sense of pride in work, providing rich pictures of student learningand competencies, and improving student engagement in the assessment process. Butleralso observes that in comparison with traditional alternatives, e-portfolios are less costlyto reproduce and generally include privacy features that may be a source of psycholog-ical security for students and their parents, as well as a source of legal security forinstitutions. In some cases, the entire range of these benefits might be recognized at theoutset by the teachers adopting e-portfolios, but in other cases it might be necessary tocommunicate them to those teachers at the point of training or evaluation, in order toproductively shape their attitudes toward such resources, especially at times wheninstitutional pressure in favor of ICT has outpaced teachers’ receptiveness to it.

Of course, positive attitudes toward the implementation of e-portfolios would begreatly encouraged if skeptical teachers were given reason to believe that theseresources and ICT in general tend to correlate with improved student outcomes. Andresearch has certainly accumulated over the years to suggest that young studentsgenerally respond to modern technological resources in a way that supports improvedperformance. Geer (2000), for instance, found this to be the effect of webpage buildingprojects. Qualitative data in that case uncovered information about student attitudestoward technologically-intensive work and the overall field of ICT learning, and itpointed to a strong tendency toward greater academic potential when pre-existinginterest in technological resources was exploited. E-portfolios serve to exploit similarinterests, and the construction of those portfolios can be viewed as a highly simplifiedweb-building project, particularly suitable for early childhood learners. Geer’s studydiscovered that a plurality of students described the skills that they were learningthrough webpage building as useful, relevant, and Breal life,^ and it is plainly obviousthat these skills have grown only more central to everyday life in subsequent years.

When students describe ICT skills as Breal life^ skills, they may primarily bereferring to their social relevance, in which case the integration of ICT into classroomactivities can be seen as useful for maintaining student engagement in the overalllearning environment. On the other hand, they may also be referring to the practical andcareer implications of acquiring those skills, rather than just their impact on the social


lives and interests of students. Either interpretation of this aspect of Geer’s (2000) studysupports the idea that there is value for the student if a classroom further integrates ICTand e-portfolios into its everyday learning activities. That potential value is furtherunderscored by Carl and Strydom's (2017) observation that e-portfolios are a particu-larly effective tool for assessing the acquisition of student skills, specifically the skillsof criticism, creativity, and innovation that are increasingly expected of students in thetwenty-first century. Meanwhile, the social dimensions of student interest in such toolspoint to the broader potential benefits for students who use them to more skillfullynavigate both the social and the professional worlds of their teenage and adult lives.

But while Geer (2000) found that students frequently recognized the relevance ofICT, he did not establish whether this perception was generally shared by teachers.Although such researchers as Tsirika et al. (2017) have found positive attitudes amongall stakeholders, the threat of mismatched perspectives and generational differencesremains. Coklar and Sahin (2014) highlight this possibility by suggesting that somechildren, particularly younger children, may have an advantage over teachers in termsof pre-existing ICT knowledge. They describe tech-savvy students as Bdigital natives^and tech-resistant teachers as Bdigital immigrants.^ Younger people are deluged bytechnological activities and skills from an early age and naturally acquire morefamiliarity with them, on the whole, than their teachers and parents. This is not tosay that students have complete ICT skills in absence of classroom activities on thetopic, or that all students are equal in this regard. However, the generational distinctionserves to explain why some teachers may be resistant to ICT integration in spite of thefact that students are evidently excited by the prospect.

These findings do not invalidate other researchers’ conclusion that teachers andinstitutions are generally interested in the adoption of resources like e-portfolios. Butthey do offer stakeholders the warning that that interest is not universal. Situations mayarise in specific classrooms or particular geographical regions, which make it necessaryto bridge the gap in understanding or excitement that exists between teachers andstudents. In a study of ICT in Chinese classrooms, Xiaoqing et al. (2013) found that atleast in that setting, there is a significant disconnect between students’ and teachers’perceptions of the importance, relevance, and practicality of ICT. In other words, whilethere are legitimate reasons for expanding a classroom’s focus on ICT curricula and e-portfolios, it is possible that some teachers are generally not aware of these reasons orsimply do not agree with them. Their lower levels of acceptance for ICTwere generallyascribed to a diminished sense of the overall importance of technology, and a lack ofunderstanding as to how it is utilized or could be utilized in classrooms. Lacking thesefeatures and in turn resisting ICT also correlates to a greater level of difficulty inadapting once the technologies are introduced.

Fortunately for institutions that are pushing the adoption of e-portfolios and relatedICT resources, the literature suggests that even when teachers are not initially eager toadopt those tools, such eagerness begins to emerge after the tools have been introduced.Karlin et al. (2016) gathered qualitative data on three different teachers’ experienceswith three different e-portfolio development resources and found that each of themended the trial period with the sense that it would be well worth continuing the same e-portfolio procedures.

This improvement in attitudes toward e-portfolio is important because it apparentlysets the stage for better implementation of such resources and, by extension, better


outcomes. Beckers et al. (2016) find that regardless of initial attitudes toward newlyadopted classroom technologies, the effectiveness of these things is much greater ifstakeholders are motivated. They go on to state that the existing literature indicates thelack of such motivation remains a serious issue. Presumably, some of these motivationissues could be resolved with the dissemination of more knowledge of the usefulnessand potential applications of e-portfolios. And according to Tsirika et al. (2017), suchknowledge has the added benefit of greatly improving the success of teachers’ usage ofthose same resources.

In cases where parents or teachers fail to see the importance of ICT or to understandit for themselves, they may be poorly equipped to teach related skills to children andstudents, unless they increase their own competencies or accept the integration of ICTinto homes and classrooms in ways that help them to monitor and guide children’stechnological development while managing ICT-rich environments. When teachers andparents are poorly-equipped digital immigrants, any student who lacks another meansof acquiring ICT skills may never be adequately educated on those skills, which willnonetheless be required for both social and professional purposes as well as for the sakeof more complete learning of educational curricula.

This is not to say that students are or should be entirely dependent upon teachers fortheir acquisition of ICT skills. Indeed, integration of new technology into the classroommay give students considerable opportunities to direct their own learning, with teachersserving in something more like an advisory role to keep students on task and connecttheir ICT activities to broader classroom curricula. This is essentially what Manochehriand Sharif (2010) found in their study of the effects of new technologies on students’learning attitudes. They conducted focus groups with students in Qatar and found moreself-directed learning and a greater sense of ease in classroom activities when studentswere introduced to new technologies. ICT in the classroom allowed these students toutilize alternative and arguably more efficient means of communicating amongstthemselves and gathering educationally-relevant information.

Eun (2008) reached similar conclusions from her study of ICT-integrated kindergar-ten classrooms in Korea. She determined that learning was effectively supported inthose settings when user-friendly computer activities were connected to classroomthemes. This was especially true when teachers avoided interrupting students’ auton-omous performance of tasks, because this allowed the children to use the technologyfor social interaction in working pairs and with shared, open-ended activities. Tsirikaet al. (2017) mirror the findings of both of these studies, insofar as they report that e-portfolios improve collaborative communications and evaluations among students andbetween students and teachers.

Chisholm and Wetzel (2001) indicate that these interactions seem to benefit fromthe open-endedness of relevant ICT tools. They point out that students withdifferent backgrounds may have distinctly different senses of the value of interper-sonal communication. The authors find that the features of ICT suggest that it is aparticularly useful support for pedagogy in multicultural classrooms. Where per-ceptions of interpersonal communication differ, ICT allows for accommodation ofall preferences. It offers students a sense of solitude if they desire it, while alsofacilitating mutual engagement. By engaging with fellow students through a digitalmedium, students may enjoy the best of both worlds, whether they prefer individualor group learning.


Thus, if teachers avoid obstructing students’ independent and mutual explorations oftasks and technologies, there is great potential for the transformation of ordinaryclassrooms with e-portfolios. Barak and Shachar (2008) find that by not just utilizingthese technologies but actually focusing some classroom projects on technologicalintegration, students tend to demonstrate greater levels of engagement and betteroverall learning skills. Geer (2000) certainly agrees with this observation insofar ashe finds students had a keener sense of the work’s connection to the real world when itinvolved a digital medium, and that they demonstrated better short-term educationaloutcomes compared to students who did not utilize such a medium.

All of this research seems to suggest that ICT-integrated classrooms are per-ceived by students as being relevant to their lives and that this fact contributes tothe likelihood of their producing positive outcomes both in terms of technologicalproficiency of students and teachers, and in terms of student engagement withbroader educational tasks and goals. However, the research also establishes thatthere may be a gap between this evidence and teacher attitudes towards ICTintegration, although these can be overcome with teacher training in e-portfolios,as well as a general increase in knowledge about ICT among educational stake-holders. This effect may account for the fact that the most recent entries in theexisting literature tend to show greater overall levels of enthusiasm for e-portfoliosand similar resources. General familiarity with ICT has naturally increased overthe past several years, and ever larger numbers of educators and other stakeholderscan be described as digital natives.

This is true of parents as well as educators, and in cases where parents still fail toembrace the potential of ICT resources, informative communications can help toovercome whatever gap may exist between their understanding and that of theirchildren. O'Hara (2011) found that at the time of his study, some parents tended toobstruct children’s ICT experiences in the home. But just 3 years later, Coklar andSahin (2014) made contrary observations, possibly pointing to an ongoing shift towardmore positive attitudes among adults, and greater levels of technological literacy. Thelater study showed that adults had started to use children’s in-home ICT experiences tobecome more personally familiar with the relevant technologies. And yet another 3years later, Tsirika et al. (2017) found that parents overwhelmingly embraced andsupported in-home use of e-portfolio tools.

The apparent shift toward more supportive attitudes implies the abandonment offamiliar, presumptuous concerns about ICT in the classroom and in the home, includingconcerns about it constituting a distraction from learning activities and content areas.Interestingly, this particular concern may be disappearing not only because of growinglevels of adult familiarity and comfort with ICT, but also because maladaptiveoutcomes were previously recognized by researchers, but no longer are. Ramseyet al. (2013) found that college students who communicated with their parents usingtext messages and social network technologies in 2009 tended to demonstrate moreconflict and anxiousness in their interactions. But in an identical study of a similargroup in 2011, these correlations had disappeared.

One possible way of interpreting this data is to say that as technologies becomesocially prevalent, they also become necessary to the demands of modern communi-cation, and individuals fully adapt to those demands. In this sense, the entire sociallandscape of communications may change in light of ICT. This further underscores the


basic importance of having well-developed ICT skills in order to be able to navigatethat social landscape and the professional landscape that grows out of it. This calls fordeliberately educating students with the twenty-first century skills that address theseneeds, as well as instructing teachers in how to do so while underscoring that theseskills often contribute to better outcomes in the study of classroom curricula.

Indeed, the absence of effective implementation of e-portfolios and associatedresources may lead to young students missing opportunities to improve not only theirICT skills but also their mastery of certain content areas. E-portfolio activities like thosepresented in the following study constitute multimedia instructional materials, andresearchers like Oshinaike and Adekunmisi (2012) consider these necessary to fullyachieving mastery of scientific concepts. Onasanya and Omosewo (2011) similarlyconcluded that without learning materials to supplement lectures and verbal presenta-tion, students tend to perform poorly in assessments of their grasp of core concepts inthe areas of biology, chemistry, and physics.

According to Milne and Otieno (2007), traditional science learning has been criti-cized for inadequateluy engaging learners and failing to foster deeper understanding. Ofcourse, as Zaytoon and Lafortune (2013) points out, scientific concepts are the basis forsuch deeper understanding and for the scientific knowledge that assists in understand-ing the structure of science, transferring the impact of learning and drawing scientificconclusions from encounters in our everyday lives. Despite the importance of scientificconcepts, students face difficulties in grasping them, particularly in the elementaryschool years, partly because of the failure to resolve confusion among meanings orverbal references (Khataybeh 2011).

Educators believe that these sorts of difficulties can be overcome with resources andteaching methods that promote active interaction in the learning process. E-portfolioscertainly fit this description, by virtue of the above-mentioned functions of self-assessment and contextualization of the learning process. The same resources alsoconstitute multimedia learning, insofar as they may involve combinations of variousdigital media such as text, images, sounds, and video into integrated, multi-sensory,interactive applications or presentations that convey a message or information to anaudience, (Oshinaike and Adekunmisi 2012).

Ogunbote and Adesoye (2006) observed that such multimedia technology adds anew dimension to learning experiences because concepts are easier to present andcomprehend when the words are complemented with image and animations. Theynoted that it has been established that learners retain more when a variety of sensesare engaged in imparting knowledge; and the intensity of the experience aidsretention and recall by engaging social, emotional and intellectual senses. Bycontrast, traditional instruction is usually based on ‘chalk’ and ‘talk’ methods, withno teaching materials for adequate illustration to assist the learner in mastery ofscientific concepts.

Given their multimedia potential, e-portfolios may represent a solution to thisdeficiency. Furthermore, their tendency to facilitate improved communication andhigher levels of student self-reflection suggests that these resources also provide abalance of child-initiated and teacher-guided opportunities for young children toexplore and learn about effective strategies for teaching and learning in early childhood.This is something that the National Research Council (2001) has explicitly recom-mended alongside students’ autonomous construction of knowledge.


In keeping with such recommendations, the following study aspires to utilize e-portfolios as a tool for responsive teaching, which entails a child–initiated and child-directed constructivist perspective in which teachers provide materials and opportuni-ties for exploration and experimentation, but without explicitly and systematicallyteaching specific concepts. Guided by the work of Piaget, constructivist preschoolteachers provide support and facilitate children’s learning by encouraging children’sself-direction and arranging potential cognitive conflicts without explicitly providinginformation (Chaille and Britain 1991; Forman and Kuschner, 1983). The followingdescriptions for the model of the current study will illustrate how e-portfolios areutilized to promote self-directed learning, in the interest of assessing their impact onself-directed student outcomes.

1.2 Study objectives

The study aims to:

1. Utilize how e-portfolio can be used in building a challenging and supportive, butself-directed learning environment for young children to acquire academic knowl-edge, science concepts and skills.

2. Evaluate the impact of e-portfolio tasks on the improvement of kindergarten students’cognitive performance in general and their grasp of science concepts in particular.

3. Assess parents’ willingness and ability to contribute to home learning environ-ments and scaffolding of their children’s learning vis-a-vis e-portfolio assignments.

1.3 Questions of the study

The key objective of this study is to answer the following questions:

1. What is the impact of computer-aided e-portfolios on the improvement of Kuwaitichildren’s skills in carrying out tasks related to kindergarten science concepts?

2. Does a child’s performance of tasks differ according to gender?3. What is the correlative relationship between the task time and number of errors

committed by the child performing the task?4. What are the correlative relationships among the teachers’ estimation of three

factors: the children’s overall performance, their acquisition of new skills, andthe consistency of their performance over time?

5. Is there a difference between teachers’ estimation of the child’s performance andthe actual indicators of time spent on the task and number of errors?

6. To what extent can parents help their children achieve their own electronicperformance file?

2 Method

This research enviroment learning provided with full access to; (data show, inter-active board, teacher desktop PC, and wireless Internet connection). Children were


able to log into a classroom website designed for this study, either from theclassroom or at home. Each child was provided with a tablet PC. This technologywas presented alongside an explanation of its potential to provide personalized andstudent-centered experiences to students within schools and beyond (Severin andCapota 2011).

Kuwaiti curriculum for kindergarten, called an Bexperience-basedcurriculum^, was restructured to meet the objectives of this study, and digitalresources were integrated into it. The study focused on curriculumBexperiences^ involving life science, physical science, and science as a wayof knowing. A website was designed as a foundation for e-portfolios andlearning objects were integrated into it to reflect the content of the curriculum.The classroom teacher made audio recordings presenting a task question eachweekend and uploaded it to the website, and students were expected to accessit at home alongside their parents.

E-portfolio activities were designed to accommodate five specific instructionalprinciples outlined by Meyers and Nulty (2009). They were intended to providestudents with learning experiences that:

& are authentic, real-world and relevant& are constructive, sequential and interlinked& require engagement with progressively higher-order cognitive processes& are mutually aligned with desired learning outcomes& promote interest and motivation with regard to the subject matter

They study participants were provided with access to e-portfolio content that consistedof videos, images, and web links related to the kindergarten science core curriculum.Each student was thus able to use devices both inside the classroom and at home tocomplete activities and personal engage with content related to the following topicareas: properties of objects and materials, position and motion of objects, characteristicsof organisms, life cycles, organisms and environments, properties of earth materials,objects in the sky, changes in the earth and the sky, environmental pollution, and naturalphenomena. Also it contain personal section, so the children can create or upload theirdigital work.

At home, children logged onto the kindergarten website using their portraits as IDs,along with a unique password. They were asked to click on a task icon and listen to theteacher’s voice describing the task of the week, students then uploaded their completeddigital work into the Bpersonal section^ of the e-portfolio.

To help assure participation within the home learning environment, researchers metwith parents on two occasion and explained the study and its contents. Parents werealso provided with contact details for the researchers in the event they needed additionalinformation about how to facilitate use of the e-portfolios.

Similar information was provided to children in the classroom, and participa-tion was further encouraged by integrating the e-portfolio contents into classroominstruction. In addition to conducting lessons and hands-on activities, teachersguided children in logging onto the classroom website and accessing their e-portfolios within the classroom. Without further instruction, children then


demonstrated and shared what they had learned and how they had carried on thetask, and they reflected on their work.

2.1 Data collection procedure

The primary data were collected through individual observation of each child (N = 22)by two classroom teachers. The teachers observed the performance of the children inthe class while presenting and reviewing their e-portfolios. They used a rubric designedto mark indicators reflecting cognitive abilities (Ottenhoff 2011). In addition, contentanalysis was carried out on children’s e-portfolios, which host artifacts collected bychildren to meet task assignments. This analysis sought evidence of knowledge andunderstanding of the kindergarten curriculum content.

To look for evidence in e-portfolio artifacts, researchers conducted a descriptiveindex of all e-portfolio contents including text, image, and video. They then coded forwhat learners’ voluntary presentation of their own e-portfolios demonstrated in terms ofself-regulation, self-monitoring, and reflection on their learning processes. Classroomteachers used the index to collect indicators and evidence regarding Bwhat they know,were able to do and how they did it^, while observing and monitoring the childrenwhile they presented their e-portfolio artifacts. The first rubric was designed based on amodified model of Eisenberg and Berkowitz (1990) for ICT skill. The rubric describedthree levels of performance; low, medium and high.

Additionally, 22 parents participated in a semi-structured interview and completed aself-report rubric, both designed and applied to pinpoint their contribution to homelearning environments and scaffolding their children’s learning while doing e-portfolioassignments (See Table 7 t-test).

2.2 Validity and reliability of the instruments

Determining validity and reliability involves an inquiry to document the rigorous devel-opment and evaluation of the measurement instrument. BValidity refers to the appropri-ateness, meaningfulness and usefulness of the inferences a researcher makes. Reliabilityrefers to the consistency of scores of answers from one administration of an instrument toanother, and from one set of item to another^ (Freankel and Wallen 1993, p. 138).

After the development of the rubrics, extensive revisions were made to assurereliability and validity. The instrument was reviewed by five professors of KuwaitUniversity, to establish face and construct validity, they suggested minor modifications,and revisions were performed accordingly. The instrument were tested in a pilot studyand reliability was established by the degree to which researchers and classroomteachers agreed on assessment methods.

Reliability is an indication of the consistency of an instrument. A test is consideredreliable when the same results occur regardless of when the test occurs or who does thescoring (Charles 1995). Based on 4 weeks of pilot data, Pearson correlation was used tocompare researchers and classroom teachers; this determined that the performancerubric was (r = 0.70). In addition, the rubric for reliability of cognition was examinedusing Cranach Alpha. The researchers used t-tests to understand the changes inchildren’s performance while presenting their e-portfolio. Mann-Whitney was used totest the difference between boys’ and girls’ performances, using SPSS v. 20.


3 Research results

To evaluate the impact of e-portfolios in the participating Kuwaiti kindergarten, themeans have been calculated for teachers’ assessments of children’s task performance invarious areas. Results appear in Table 1.

The first four assessment topics in Table 1 can be grouped together to representteachers’ assessments of students’ skills in computer-aided tasks. That group has anoverall mean of (2.34) out of (3) degrees with a standard deviation of (0.212). This is ahigh-level arithmetic mean that has a relative importance of 81%. It indicates that theteachers find the children are competent at performing skills of the e-portfolios. Thestandard deviation of (0.212) indicates how close teachers’ estimates of the children’spossession of skills are.

Assessment topics five through eight represent teachers’ estimation of the children’sskills at reviewing and evaluating the accomplished tasks of the achievement file. Thetotal mean for responses in this group is (2.40) with a standard deviation of (0.235).This is a high-level arithmetic mean with a relative importance of 80%. It indicates thatthe teachers find the children are competent at reviewing and evaluating tasks. Thestandard deviation of (0.235) indicates how close teachers’ estimates of children’spossession of skills are.

Assessment phrases nine through 14 represent teachers’ estimation of the kinder-garteners’ skills of keeping up performance of definite tasks through use of a computerand e-portfolios. The overall mean for this group was (2.25). This is a high-level

Table 1 Teachers’ assessments of Bchildren’s task performance^ in science concepts

Question no. Phrase Mean Std. Dev. Level

1. Has the ability to choose the way of presenting the task. 2.35 0.493 High

2. Has the ability to activate the e-environment related topresenting the task.

2.59 0.507 High

3. Has the ability to determine his/her ownelectronic content.

2.41 0.507 High

4. Has the ability to choose the file containing therequired task to be presented.

2.35 0.493 High

5. Has the ability to present and explain the taskto other children.

2.35 0.493 High

6. Has the ability to explain the mechanism ofaccomplishing the task.

2.41 0.618 High

7. Has the ability to give clarifications of task-relatedinformation being displayed on a screen.

2.59 0.507 High

8. Understands the implied concepts of the task. 2.24 0.437 Medium

9. Enjoys self-confidence during the presentation. 2.71 0.470 High

10. Has full understanding of the task concepts. 2.47 0.624 High

11. Has the ability to resume performing the task alone. 2.29 0.470 Medium

12. Presents the required task logically. 2.18 0.393 Medium

13. Shows capability of reviewing his/her performance 2.18 0.529 Medium

14. Shows capability of speedy performance when asked. 1.65 0.606 Low


arithmetic mean and has a relative importance of 75%. It indicates that the teachers findthe children are competent at keeping up performance of tasks that they have fulfilledefficiently. The results also show the closeness of teachers’ estimates of children’spossession of those skills.

With that in mind, the study turns to the question of differences in e-portfolio taskperformance based on gender. To evaluate this, the T. test was used to check thesignificance of differences between the time spent on assessments and the averagenumber of errors for boys and girls. The results have been recorded in Table 2:

Table 2 shows there are no differences of statistical significance for time spent ontasks or the number of errors, according to gender. The values of (t) do not rise to thelevel of statistical significance (0.05) in either case. This indicates that males andfemales have similar abilities and skills to perform e-portfolio tasks, and that theyencounter similar difficulties resulting in some errors during performance. Similarly,there are no differences of statistical significance in the teachers’ estimates of boys’ andgirls’ performance skills with regard to e-portfolios. The values of (t) do not rise to(0.05), which means the teachers estimate males and females to have equivalent skillsin performing e-portfolio tasks.

Turning to the correlative relationship between the task time and number of errorscommitted by the child performing the task, the means and standard deviations werefound for performance times and the number of errors were calculated. Then, thePearson linear correlation coefficient of the two means was calculated. The resultsappear in Tables 3 and 4:

The results in Table 3 revealed that it took the children (242.94) minutes with anaverage of (13.76) errors to perform the six tasks of the e-portfolios using acomputer. The shortest time recorded was (22.82) minutes for the first experienceand the longest was (47.47) minutes for the third experience. As far as errors areconcerned, the results in the table indicate that the experience with the fewestnumber of errors was the fifth with (0.71) errors while the experience with thelargest number was the first with (4.59) errors. The linear correlation coefficient(LCC) between the time of task performance and number of errors is (−0.543),

Table 2 T.test for gender-related differences in length of performance and number of errors

Dependent variable Gender N Mean Std. Dev. T Df Sig. (2-tailed)

Time Male 11 239.27 42.793 .566 15 .580

Female 6 249.67 16.452

Mistakes Male 11 13.55 7.326 .188 15 .854

Female 6 14.17 4.491

Teacher assessment of task performance Male 11 9.73 .786 .136 15 .893

Female 6 9.67 1.033

Teacher assessment of student’stask evaluation review

Male 11 9.55 1.036 .247 15 .808

Female 6 9.67 .816

Teacher assessment of continuityin task performance

Male 11 13.64 1.362 .661 15 .518

Female 6 13.17 1.472


which indicates inverse correlation; i.e., the less time the task takes the greater thechance of committing mistakes, and the longer the task performance time, the fewerthe mistakes.

To assess the correlative relationship among the teachers’ estimations of the child’stask performance, skills learning, and durability of performance, a matrix of correlationcoefficients (CC) was made of the teachers’ estimates of kindergarteners’ task perfor-mance skills. The results have been recorded in Table 5:

These results show the direct correlations among teachers’ estimates of children’stask performance with e-portfolios. It indicates that the teachers’ estimation of thechild’s performance relates directly to his/her ability to review the tasks s/he hasaccomplished. The correlation coefficient (CC) of (0.553) represents a strong, directcorrelation. Results also show that the increase in the child’s ability to carry out taskshas a direct relation to his/her ability to go on carrying out tasks, with a similarly strongand direct (CC) of (0.555).

Teachers’ estimates of the children’s skills in performing tasks reveal a directcorrelation between the child’s ability to review and evaluate the skills s/he hasaccomplished and his/her ability to keep up performance, with a linear (CC) of(0.470) which represents a moderate but direct correlation. Teachers’ estimates ofthe children’s task performance also suggest that the more skillful and capablethe child is, the better his/her ability to perform other tasks will be. The resultsalso highlight the possibility of predicting the child’s level of performance withany of the skills required in cases where his/her ability for performing otherskills is known.

This conclusion can be tested by comparing teachers’ estimation of the child’sperformance skills and his/her actual performance level according to time spent onperforming the task and number of errors. For this, a matrix of (CCs) was created forthe child’s performance level according to performance time, number of errors andteachers’ estimates of task performance skills.

Table 3 Time spent on kindergartners’ experience tests

Exp. (1) Exp. (2) Exp. (3) Exp. (4) Exp. (5) Exp. (6) Total

Mean 22.82 34.47 47.47 44.94 40.82 38.65 242.94

Std. Dev. 8.61 5.60 5.05 5.31 5.80 6.44 35.43

Table 4 Number of errors during kindergartners’ experience tests

Exp. (1) Exp. (2) Exp. (3) Exp. (4) Exp. (5) Exp. (6) Total

Mean 4.59 2.88 2.06 2.65 .71 .88 13.76

Std. Dev. 1.23 1.58 1.14 1.62 1.57 1.27 6.32


Table 6 shows a weak inverse relationship between children’s task performancelevel according to time and number of errors on the one hand, and teachers’estimates of children’s skills at performing-portfolio tasks on the other hand. Thenumber of errors committed during task performance increased the teacher’s esti-mates of the child’s skills with different tasks. Thus, it can be inferred that teacherestimates do not differ from the actual performance level of the child according totime and number of errors.

The apparent accuracy of teacher evaluations thus determined, a question remainsregarding to what extent parents can help their children achieve their own electronicperformance file. In this study, parents have been presented with relevant phrases, andthe arithmetic means have been calculated for their replies. The results are shown in(Table 7).

These results show that the mean of parents’ overall responses about assistingtheir children with the e-portfolio achievement file is (2.46), which is a high-levelarithmetic mean with a relative importance of 88%. This indicates that parents havea major role in guiding their children toward performing and accomplishing therequired tasks qualitatively and efficiently. Their efforts were centered on providinga good learning environment and the necessary tools, after which they had only toguide, encourage and reward the child for his/her accomplishments. In short, therewas good parental support for the child at home to help him/her perform therequired tasks efficiently.

Table 5 Correlations among teacher estimates of task performance

Task review Perseverance of task performance

Task performance Pearson correlation .553* .555*

Sig. (1-tailed) .011 .010

N 17 17

Task review Pearson correlation 1 .470*

Sig. (1-tailed) .029

N 17

* Correlation is significant at the 0.05 level (1-tailed)

Table 6 Matrix of correlation coefficients of the children’s performance level and teachers’ estimates of theirtask performance skills

Teacher assessmentof task performance skills

Teacher assessmentof performance self-evaluation

Teacher assessmentof performance continuity

Time spent on task −0.389 .027 −0.102Number of errors −0.398 −0.038 −0.094


4 Conclusions and recommendations

The existing literature on ICT clearly indicates that e-portfolios and related resourceshave generally positive correlation with improved student outcomes. In the first place,these technologies have the potential to increase student engagement, especially in thearea of self-assessment and self-directed learning. In the second place, ICT alsoprovides students with meaningful training in skills that are at once socially relevantand increasingly in-demand for the emerging workplace.

However, the existing literature also establishes that there is frequent discontinuitybetween the productive potential of ICT and the perceptions that individual teachershave developed toward resources such as e-portfolios. At times, preexisting negative ordismissive attitudes about these resources threaten to undermine the escalating institu-tional pressure for their adoption. Fortunately, this study suggests that a teacher’sclassroom experience with ICT may tend to justify those institutional pressures,potentially even leading to the reversal or preexisting misconceptions.

After all, it is difficult to imagine teachers in this study developing or retainingnegative impressions of e-portfolios after being prompted to assess students’ per-formance after they have undertaken learning and self-assessment activities involv-ing those resources. The participants in this study consistently made accurateestimates of student performance and found that those students were producingpositive outcomes, which they were able to maintain throughout the duration of thestudy. The use of e-portfolios demonstrably helped children improve their taskperformance in line with program goals. It also helped them evaluate their ownskills and outcomes.

While it is not clear whether teachers would have recognized the impact of ICT ifthey experienced it outside of the context of this study, one can easily conclude thatthere is not much that needs to be done by educational institutions in order to maketheir teachers aware of this potential or actual impact. The existing literature already

Table 7 Means and standard deviations of the parents’ answers about assisting their children with achieve-ment file tasks

No. Phrase Mean Std. Dev. Level

1 Providing a child with a developed computer. 2.73 0.658 High

2 Rewarding a child upon accomplishing the requiredtasks qualitatively and efficiently.

2.71 0.618 High

3 Guiding a child on how to self-accomplish the desiredtasks and supervise their own work.

2.67 0.691 High

4 Designing a class-like room for the child at home. 2.64 0.624 High

5 Encouraging the child to ask questions about howto perform the required tasks.

2.31 0.601 Medium

6 Answering the child’s questions on how to performthe required tasks.

2.14 0.725 Medium

7 Providing the child with all tools and material neededto encourage him/her, achieve the learning tasks.

2.05 0.683 Medium

Total 2.46 0.452 Medium


indicates a tendency of teachers to develop greater eagerness for the use of ICTresources after those resources have already been integrated into those classrooms.This study may point toward the mechanism by which this interest develops. This notonly justifies the continued adoption of e-portfolios by all modern educational institu-tions; it also encourages those institutions to explicitly focus teachers’ attention uponthe benefits that accrue from effective implementation.

Because this study found no significant differences between teachers’ estimates oftheir students’ abilities and those students’ actual performance markers, it seems highlyunlikely that mistaken impressions could develop about e-portfolios once they havebeen introduced to a classroom in a deliberate and effective manner. And under thoseconditions, it is also unlikely that teachers would fail to identify positive indicators ofstudent performance, since this study found consistently positive correlations amongtask-performance, self-evaluation, and the long-term retention of relevant skills.

The factor of self-assessment bears strong resemblance to the information that hasalready been established in the literature on ICT, namely that e-portfolios and similarresources result in a stronger tendency toward self-directed learning. Those resourcesrepresent means of communication that are highly familiar to students’ current socialcontexts and that will be similarly familiar to their professional contexts in the future.What’s more, the literature establishes that the effectiveness of these mechanisms isincreasingly broad-ranging as time goes on, such that they may now facilitate commu-nications between children and adults whereas they may have once impeded thosecommunications. Such interactions are not limited to those between a student and his orher teacher, but may also include interactions between parent and child. This highlightsthe potential for the self-directed learning of ICT and e-portfolio tasks to extend beyondthe classroom, provided that there is support from other adult stakeholders in thelearning environment.

Such potential is precisely what this study sought to establish via the data related toits final research question, which specifically asked to what extent parents can helptheir children to accomplish e-portfolio goals. Just as it is with teachers, there is a strongtendency among parents to support student engagement with these sorts of resourcesonce they have been exposed to them and prompted to recognize their potentialeffectiveness. By virtue of the fact that e-portfolios are not location-specific, adequatelyinformed teachers and parents have significant potential to work together in supportingstudents’ self-directed use of ICT, thereby helping to create a more comprehensivecommunity of practice.

In light of the study results, the following is recommended:

1. Teachers in early childhood classrooms should provide children with training in theuse of e-portfolios and related technological resources, as tools for working outcontent-related problems and performing successively more challenging tasks.

2. Each kindergartner should be provided with a tablet and access to high-speedinternet.

3. Institutional leaders and other stakeholders should continue to promote the use ofe-portfolios in kindergartens.

4. Teachers should engage with parents in a way that encourages them to share in theeducational experience, especially where at-home resources like online e-portfoliosare concerned.


5. Teachers’ and parents’ input should be recognized for its prospective insight intostudent performance and potential, and open discussion of educational improve-ments should be encouraged.

6. Parents should receive training in the use of home-based educational technologies,and how they can be applied to fostering self-directed learning.

Publisher’s Note Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps andinstitutional affiliations.

References

Abrami, P., & Barrett, H. (2005). Directions for research and development on electronic portfolios 1.Canadian Journal of Learning and Technology, 31(3), 1–15.

Anagün, S., Atalay, N. & Kandemir, C. (2018). E-Portfolio Implementation Experiences of ProspectivePrimary School Teachers. Turkish Online Journal of Qualitative Inquiry, 9(2), 102–124.

Barak, M., & Shachar, A. (2008). Projects in technology education and fostering learning: the potential and itsrealization. Journal of Science Education and Technology, 17(3), 285–296.

Beckers, J., Dolmans, D., & van Merriënboer, J. (2016). E-portfolios enhancing students’ self-directedlearning: a systematic review of influencing factors. Australasian Journal of Educational Technology,32(2), 32–46.

Butler, P. (2006). A review of the literature on portfolios and electronic portfolios. Australian Journal ofTeacher Education. http://eduforge.org. Accessed 20 Sept 2017

Carl, A., & Strydom, S. (2017). E-portfolio as reflection tool during teaching practice: the interplay betweencontextual and dispositional variables. South African Journal of Education, 37(1), 1–10.

Chaille, C., & Britain, L. (1991). The young child as scientist: A constructivist approach to early childhoodscience education. New York: Harper Collins.

Charles, C. (1995). Introduction to educational research. New York: Longman.Chisholm, I., & Wetzel, K. (2001). Technology and multiculturalism in the classroom. Journal of Research on

Computing in Education, 33(5), 1–33.Churcher, K. A., Downs, E., & Tewksbury, D. (2014). "Friending" Vygotsky: a social constructivist pedagogy

of knowledge building through classroom social media use. Journal of Effective Teaching, 14(1), 33–50.Coklar, A., & Sahin, Y. (2014). Technology literacy according to students: what is it, where are what and we

should we do for parents and children? Turkish Online Journal of Qualitative Inquiry, 5(2), 27–34.Eisenberg, M. B., & Berkowitz, R. E. (1990). Information problem-solving: the Big Six Skills approach to

library & information skills instruction. Norwood, NJ: AblexEun M. (2008). A descriptive study on young children’s interaction with peers at the computer area in a

Korean public kindergarten classroom.Forman, G. E., & Kuschner, D. (1983). The child's construction of knowledge: Piaget for teaching children.

Washington, DC: NAEYCFreankel, J., & Wallen, N. (1993). How to design and evaluate research in education. New York:

McGraw-Hill.Geer, G. (2000). Students constructing web pages: Does it affect educational outcomes?Karlin, M., Ozogul, G., Miles, S., & Heide, S. (2016). The practical application of e-portfolios in K-12

classrooms: an exploration of three web 2.0 tools by three teachers. Tech Trends, 60, 374–380.Khataybeh, A. (2011). Tadrees Aluloum liljamei BTeaching Science for All^. Amman: Dar Al-Massira

Publishing Distribution & Printing.Manochehri, N., & Sharif, K. (2010). Model-based investigation of learner attitude towards recently intro-

duced classroom technology. Journal of Information Technology Education, (9), 31–52.Meyers, N. M., & Nulty, D. D. (2009). How to use (five) curriculum design principles to align authentic

learning environments, assessment, students' approaches to thinking and learning outcomes. Assessment& Evaluation in Higher Education, 34, 565–577.

Milne, C., & Otieno, T. (2007). Understanding engagement: Science demonstrations and emotional energy.Science Education, 91(4), 523–553.


http://eduforge.org

National Research Council (2001). Assessment in practice. Knowing what students know: The science anddesign of educational assessment. Washington DC: National Academy Press.

Ogunbote, K. O., & Adesoye, A. E. (2006). Quality assurance in Nigerian academic libraries’ networkedmultimedia services. Journal of Library and Information Science, 3(1&2), 100–111.

O'Hara, M. (2011). Young children’s ICT experiences in the home: some parental perspectives. Journal ofEarly Childhood Research, 9(3), 220–231.

Onasanya, S. A., & Omosewo, E. O. (2011). Effect of improvised and standard instructional materials onsecondary school students’ academic performance in physics in Ilorin, Nigeria. Singapore Journal ofScientific Research, 1, 68–76.

Oshinaike, A.B & Adekunmisi, S.R. (2012). Use of multimedia for teaching in Nigerian university system: Acase study of university of Ibadan. Library Philosophy and Practice. Retrieved on September 27, 2017from http://digitalcommons.unl.edu/libphilprac/682/

Ottenhoff, J. (2011). Learning how to learn: Metacognitive in liberal education. Liberal Education, 97, 28–33.Pelliccione, L., Dixon, K., & Giddings, G. (2005). A pre-service teacher education initiative to enhance

reflection through the development of e-portfolios. Paper presented at BBalance, fidelity, mobility:Maintaining the momentum^ in Proceedings of the 22nd Annual Conference of the Australasian.

Ramsey, M., Gentzler, A., Morey, J., Oberhauser, A., & Westerman, D. (2013). College students' use ofcommunication technology with parents: comparisons between 2 cohorts in 2009 and 2011.Cyberpsychology, Behavior and Social Networking, 16(10), 747–752.

Severin, E., & Capota, C. (2011). The use of technology in education: Lessons from South Korea. Inter-American Development Bank, (10), 1–8.

Tsirika, M., Kakana, D., & Michalopoulou, A. (2017). The e-portfolio in a kindergarten classroom: adoptingalternative assessment methods through action research. American Journal of Educational Research, 5(2),114–123.

Wray, S. (2007). E-portfolios in a teacher education program. E-Learning, 4(1), 40–51.Xiaoqing, G., Yuankun, Z., & Xiaofeng, G. (2013). Meeting the "digital natives": Understanding the

acceptance of technology in classrooms. Journal of Educational Technology & Society, 16(1), 392–402.Zaytoon, J., & Lafortune, S. (2013). Overview of fault diagnosis methods for discrete event systems. Annual

Reviews in Control, 37(2), 308–320.Zeichner, K., &Wray, S. (2001). The teaching portfolio in US teacher education programs: what we know and

what we need to know. Teaching and Teacher Education, 17, 613–621.


http://digitalcommons.unl.edu/libphilprac/682/

impact of e-portfolios on teacher assessment and …...impact of e-portfolios on teacher assessment...

Documents