- Email: [email protected]
Two steps forward, one step back: The intricacies of engaging with eportfolios in nursing undergraduate education
Nurse Education Today 35 (2015) 568–572
Contents lists available at ScienceDirect
Nurse Education Today journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/nedt
Review
Two steps forward, one step back: The intricacies of engaging with eportfolios in nursing undergraduate education Tulsa Andrews ⁎, Clare Cole Faculty of Health, Federation University, Australia
a r t i c l e
i n f o
Article history: Accepted 16 December 2014 Keywords: e-Portfolio Nursing Education Barriers Hurdles Reflections
a b s t r a c t Objectives: To share the experience of implementing and refining the use of e-portfolios into an undergraduate nursing degree. Design: This is a reflective piece that explores the hurdles experienced in introducing and maintaining e-portfolio's into higher education, particularly in undergraduate nursing curricula. Data Sources: Nil Review Methods: Review of the literature, and comparing and contrasting this against the experience of the authors. Results: Hurdles included access to computer and quality internet connections, along with the levels of IT literacy of staff, and the common misconception that all students are IT savvy. What was also evident was how the need for both pedagogical and technical support to both staff and students was paramount in achieving an understanding of the software, and the scope and perspective of e-portfolio pedagogy. With each of these hurdles, staff reluctance to engage in e-portfolio use in the tertiary sector was evident. On reflection of each of these challenges, the authors identified that their experience mirrored other tertiary institutions in that a single hurdle alone is not responsible for fragmented e-portfolio implementation, but a combination of factors. Through exploring recommendations from other tertiary institutions, the authors recognize the limitations within their own working environment that contributed to the pitfalls experienced. Conclusion: Despite e-portfolios being introduced into higher education for over a decade, its' successful implementation into undergraduate nursing curricula continues to be fraught with pitfalls, creating the sense of moving backwards more so than forwards. As with any new learning tool, careful consideration needs to be given to comprehensive planning, implementation, review and evaluation to either prevent the hurdles identified, or limit their impact on the quality of the portfolio produced and the learning attained from the process. © 2015 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
Introduction This paper is a reflection based on the experiences of two lecturers developing and implementing the use of e-portfolios into an undergraduate nursing curriculum in a regional Victorian University. This paper highlights the challenges and barriers to successful implementation of e-portfolio technologies, where there is varying support and knowledge available. Whilst the development of using an e-portfolio has been a progressive one, it has not been without considerable frustrations and hurdles, giving the impression at times of moving backward rather than forward. In the authors' undergraduate nursing programme, the e-portfolio has been introduced across all year levels and in some areas is a major piece of assessment. The purpose of the e-portfolio is as a development
⁎ Corresponding author at: Faculty of Health, Federation University, P.O. Box 663, Mt Helen, Victoria 3353, Australia. Tel.: +61 3 5327 9654; fax: +61 3 5327 9719. E-mail address: [email protected] (T. Andrews).
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.nedt.2014.12.011 0260-6917/© 2015 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
or continuous improvement framework, including reflective aspects of self-assessment, planning and progression. This may include journaling where students document and monitor skill development through assessing and learning through experience (Garrett and Jackson, 2006; Light et al., 2011). Another is identification of learning opportunities, strengths, and weaknesses as they relate to the Australian Nursing and Midwifery Council (ANMC) competencies (Patrick-Williams and Bennett, 2010). It also includes the collection and showcasing of competencies and capabilities for prospective employers. An e-portfolio focuses on providing a combination of both storing products and the process of learning (Malita, 2009). As a job-seeking tool, the e-portfolio allows for the demonstration of current and contemporary practice; enhances and encourages reflection; is accumulated over time and is contextual based; and can be validated by others (Andre and Heartfield, 2011). In terms of self-determination it enables reflection and framing of competence and achievement; substantiation of claims with supporting evidence; assessment of personal learning needs; development of learning and career plan and evaluation of achievement (Andre and Heartfield, 2011).
T. Andrews, C. Cole / Nurse Education Today 35 (2015) 568–572
Some of the pedagogical benefits identified from e-portfolios include authentic and experiential learning, competency-based education, lifelong learning, autodidactism, and self-directed learning (Buzzetto-More and Alade, 2008; Ring et al., 2008). Skiba et al. (2008) highlight that nursing is often an early adopter of educational innovations. However, compared to America and European Countries, Australia is behind in adopting e-portfolios as a means of continuing professional development (CPD), assessment in tertiary undergraduate nursing degrees, and for use in the process of obtaining employment.
569
The role of e-portfolios' and benefits for learning are highlighted throughout the literature, however the introduction and ongoing inclusion of its use in an undergraduate nursing curriculum has not been a seamless process. Issues such as pedagogical and technical support for students and students, computer or internet access and IT literacy of users, along with staff reluctance and limited knowledge of the software or scope of e-portfolio pedagogy are just some of the hurdles encountered by the authors over a three year period. The success of e-portfolio inclusion within the curriculum has been influenced heavily by these hurdles, and addressing these pitfalls is paramount in any ongoing progression forward.
The Role of E-Portfolios Hurdles There is increasing emphasis in the nursing profession, to demonstrate a student's commitment to accountability and continuing professional development (CPD) (Cleary et al., 2011). This is demonstrated in the registering bodies' commitment to CPD targets and the burden of proof on the individual to establish educational hours. An e-portfolio is a transferable product that students will be able to use into their careers to demonstrate CPD and personal and social responsibilities in the nursing profession (Light et al., 2011). Ideally, e-portfolios in undergraduate curriculum are best introduced as a scaffolded task. This includes the three stages of digital competence, digital usage and digital transformation (Nelson et al., 2011). First year nursing students are expected to develop digital competence through the development of basic software navigational skills and an understanding of the pedagogy behind its use; second year students develop digital usage through integration of their skills to develop bodies of work; and third year students progress through to digital transformation via demonstration of reflective practice and development of innovative and creative student centred learning projects (Nelson et al., 2011). At the authors' university, the aim for first year undergraduates was to introduce students to the pedagogy of e-portfolios and familiarisation with the software. This included basic development of profiles, images and using the e-portfolio space to store professional representations of themselves and examples of learning. The purpose was to integrate the complexity of the software usage gradually, so as to not overwhelm students along with a plethora of other technologies they encounter in an undergraduate nursing programme. Despite the assumption that our students are digitally savvy, the development of digital competence can be challenging for many students (Salajan et al., 2010). The progression into second year aimed at developing digital usage, through the introduction of journaling and creating digital pages to showcase learning as an assessment task. The value of using an e-portfolio for journaling is that it records reflections of interactions related to the stages of journey or development of students and progress. As an assessment task, it provides a combination of assessment of learning and assessment for learning (Light et al., 2011). The qualitative nature of the task means that it is student-centred and based in a constructivist approach. In a constructivist approach, the emphasis is placed on the learner and their needs, which then engages students and encourages self-reliant learners to be able to construct their own knowledge (Stefani et al., 2007). In the final year of the undergraduate programme, the e-portfolio aims to develop a sense of self-assessment performed by the student, to cultivate digital transformation. Through bringing together the competencies and examples of learning from their undergraduate studies and other professional capabilities, students are able to develop a digital portfolio for the purpose of job employment and applying for graduate positions the following year. This function of the e-portfolio brings with it credibility from an institutional perspective to the job seeker and many countries are already using e-portfolios for this purpose (Light et al., 2011). It is also recognised in the literature that those people with e-portfolios are more likely to succeed in interview processes as they are more aware of their strengths and weaknesses and are able to demonstrate higher levels of self-assessment and metacognitive skills (Light et al., 2011).
Provision of Pedagogical and Technical Support E-portfolio support includes both the pedagogy of purpose and technical support for the software used. Literature states that the introduction of e-portfolios needs to be integrated and understood by both student and staff (Light et al., 2011; Salajan et al., 2010; Skiba, 2000). It is also acknowledged that academically weaker students need considerably more support and scaffolding around the task to become self-directed (Stefani et al., 2007). It is worth also noting that social networks are often used for IT support, including familial and intimate social networks. Research by Poole et al. (2009) shows that mature students are more likely to use formal support networks whereas younger adults are more inclined to use their social and informal support networks. This highlights the importance of having appropriate support available for students and staff to successfully implement e-portfolios into an undergraduate programme. Implementing infrastructure support for students and staff is something that has been challenging and time-consuming for the authors. The first year of introduction saw the assistance available to staff and students as extremely limited, with provision of technical support only. This resulted in much angst from both staff and students, and the quality of the work produced being of poor standard. Staff were reluctant to continue with its use the following semester, and required much coaxing to persist. The following year saw that both the pedagogical and technical support increase extensively, and this was highlighted in a significant increase in the use of the technology across the curriculum, and in the improved quality of the work produced. Staff were able to adequately address the pedagogical support that promotes and develops deeper understanding, and student outcomes reflected this with high quality use of all e-portfolio components. This year has again seen a reduction in the support available to both staff and students, risking the ongoing backing of staff, and the quality of e-portfolio development. Inadequate integrative support and appropriate student and faculty development are highlighted by Skiba et al. (2008) as being a major influence in adoption of e-portfolios. Poor IT Literacy of Students/Staff It is assumed that younger generations will be more digitally savvy and have a higher degree of aptitude when using technologies (Salajan et al., 2010). There is a heavy reliance on technology for social media purposes but this does not necessarily translate to having the appropriate skills to facilitate complex IT challenges such as an e-portfolio. It is often assumed that the digital native, born after 1980, will naturally be highly trained and skilful in using technology (Margaryan et al., 2011; Salajan et al., 2010). However in the experiences of the authors, this was not the case, as the digital natives in the course struggled with the conceptualisation and development of the e-portfolio. The use of the software available was foreign to the whole student cohort and required time intensive investment on behalf of the students and staff to achieve a desirable outcome. Margaryan et al. (2011) caution against assuming that digital natives are more comfortable in participating in new technologies.
570
T. Andrews, C. Cole / Nurse Education Today 35 (2015) 568–572
IT literacy was also found to be limited within the staff involved in the delivery of this technology. Many staff were digital immigrants, being born before 1980 (Salajan et al., 2010) and this posed problems as the IT support for staff was initially limited and therefore was challenging to develop a comprehensive understanding of the software. The authors found that as additional support became available, and staff literacy skills and confidence in the use of the Mahara software within the discipline also increased.
for both pedagogical and technical e-portfolio development, and thus was more inclined to continue with its use, and encouraged integration into other courses in other year levels as a result. Moores and Parks (2010) acknowledge that implementation of e-portfolios with minimal technical support impacts greatly on academic staff and their willingness to utilise the software in the future.
Computer and/or Internet Access
It is evident throughout the literature that the strength and success of any intervention, lies in the perceived value that is placed upon it by the consumer before the product is used or bought (Tzeng, 2011; Lopez-Fernandez and Rodriguez-Illera, 2009; Garrett et al., 2013; Kim and Kankanhalli, 2009). Davis et al. (1989) address that it is the user's internal beliefs and attitudes which ultimately influence the adoption of technology and its usage. The Technology Acceptance Model identifies that the usage of a software package is being influenced by two major beliefs: the perceived usefulness and perceived ease of use (Davis et al., 1989; Venkatesh and Davis, 2000). Tzeng's (2011) work extends this with specific focus on the correlation between the perceived usefulness of a system, perceived ease of use of the system and subsequent intention to use the system. This also supports the work conducted by Kim and Kankanhalli (2009) stating that the greater the perceived value is, the higher the levels of satisfaction and trust with the innovation, and therefore decreasing the resistance to any implementation issues. In undergraduate nursing programmes, the use of eportfolio's as a framework for showcasing learning, sets its foundations on the ability to deliver the pedagogy that underpins its value. Garrett et al. (2013) and Lopez-Ferdandez and Rodriguez-Illera (2009) both explore how a negative perception of value can impact the quality and use of eportfolio development. The authors both recognise how a student's perception of value has a significant influence on whether the students view the development as just an assessment task, as a tool for prospective employment, or as a skill for life-long learning. For the latter to occur, the eportfolio development needs to be integrated throughout their programme and beyond, with a focus on learning reflection, and not just to document competencies and capabilities. Garrett et al. (2013) highlight the need for comprehensive training in a pedagogical approach to maximise successful e-portfolio implementation.
The introduction of the internet has seen unprecedented access to knowledge and information, which has allowed regional and rural students to enjoy the same access to tertiary education opportunities as their metropolitan counterparts. However factors such as gender, socioeconomic status, geographical location, and educational level all influence the access and use of technology, creating a digital divide (Goode, 2010; Waycott et al., 2010; Zhong, 2011). What is also important to recognise is that there are also disparities in the nature of the use and appropriation of these opportunities, which remain within the population of internet users (Drouard, 2010). There is often an assumption that students at a university have a computer and access to the internet at home, which is not necessarily the case, and therefore becomes a question of equity. Some of the cohort of students involved in this course did not have reliable access to the internet or the internet connection was not sufficient to be able to complete tasks on line due to limited download capacities. This meant that they were forced to spend more time on campus to complete tasks. Margaryan et al. (2011) identify that for use of technology to be successful, pedagogic design, the student's social background and life influences are important to consider and support. Staff Reluctance Whilst often the focus of e-portfolio introduction is centred on student needs, Skiba (2000) highlights that success hinges on the culture of the faulty, and the importance of staff understanding and supporting the portfolio process. The incorporation of e-portfolios into tertiary curriculum requires a fundamental commitment within the institution to provide a vision and foundation for its integration. This includes both academic and technical support staff. Staff understanding of e-portfolio pedagogy is paramount in students maximising the use of e-portfolios to develop thinking and learning over time and how to showcase competencies and capabilities to university staff and prospective employers (Malita, 2009). In order to achieve a culture that supports e-portfolio use, staff need to perceive their value. The perceived value of e-portfolios impacts on staff engagement with e-portfolio use and their willingness to adjust their teaching, along with the development of strategies to support students in creating and maintaining their e-portfolios (Davis et al., 1989; Malita, 2009; Venkatesh and Davis, 2000). Tzeng (2011) identified that the acceptance of technologies are centred on the perceived values of prospective users, which include both academic staff and students. Staff commitment, or ‘buy in’ to the perceived value of the tool and its usefulness, can directly relate to the student interest and acceptance of e-portfolio use. Staff experience with the use of technologies in teaching and learning can also greatly influence their support of the e-portfolio process. Previous success and failure with the use of technology can greatly influence a staff member's reluctance or enthusiasm in utilising eportfolio software. For both authors, the experience of e-portfolio development has been varied, with differing technical support offered each year significantly influencing the enthusiasm for software use. One author experienced minimal technical support for teacher and student software issues, creating reluctance to use the software the following year. In contrast the other author was provided with significant support
Limited Scope or Perspective of E-Portfolio Pedagogy
Lack of Software Knowledge The software used for e-portfolio development can also impact on the success of its implementation. There are numerous e-portfolio packages on the market, and most higher education students are required to utilise that provided by the institution. Davis et al. (1989) identify this as a hurdle as the consumers of these packages are often unwilling to use the available systems. Therefore the complexity of the system used, coupled with the computer literacy issues mentioned earlier can create an environment that requires considerable support. Pincombe et al. (2010) explored the use of digital portfolio's within undergraduate nursing studies and found that students voiced a significant learning challenge and issue with comprehension within the first year of the software being used. Whilst familiarity with the software improved the students comfort with use, students also noted that aspects of the software did not compliment their purpose of use. Pincombe et al.'s (2010) study identified that simply adapting a standard e-portfolio package may not be sufficient to the needs of their students. Both authors have found that the university provided e-portfolio software of Mahara was complex when viewed or taught as a whole package. Experience throughout the past three years has identified far greater student uptake and understanding when the software is introduced in small components and over a period of time. Just as an eportfolio software package may not fit the objectives of all users, so too does the provision of software knowledge not fit the learning needs of all students. Facilitating improved software knowledge has
T. Andrews, C. Cole / Nurse Education Today 35 (2015) 568–572
been best achieved with an array of forums such as narrated and on-line tutorials, instruction sheets, computer lab classes and individual appointments to cater for the diverse learning needs of students. Reflections Despite e-portfolios being introduced into higher education for over a decade, its' successful implementation into undergraduate nursing curricula continues to be fraught with pitfalls. What becomes evident is that a single hurdle alone is not responsible for fragmented e-portfolio implementation, but a combination of factors that can create the sense of moving backwards more so than forwards, and often to the detriment of the technology. Accepting the true value and use of e-portfolios as a digital learning tool, requires not only the technical support resources, but a foundation of pedagogical understanding. As a result of evaluating the introduction of an e-portfolio system into their own Faculty of Health, Moores and Parks (2010) identified twelve tips for introducing eportfolio's with undergraduate students. The first tip was to identify the added value of using an e-portfolio through making the link between e-portfolio development as not just an electronic tool for assessment tasks, but a life-long learning tool to support ongoing professional development. Moores and Parks (2010) emphasise the importance of exploring what added value the electronic platform can bring to student learning. Both authors noted that this realisation occurs predominantly in third year students as they understand the value their eportfolio work plays in the employment application process. The second recommendation made is considering the long and short term use of an eportfolio. Moores and Parks (2010) state that staff needed to differentiate between skills required for short term use in the development of assessment tasks, with that of long term use of employment applications and recording engagement with CPD. The authors identify that this, along with understanding the added value of an e-portfolio, is strongly associated with the capacity to provide pedagogical understanding as part of the process. Student ‘buy in’ was far greater when the foundations of e-portfolio pedagogy were integrated within the process, than just technical support alone. The third recommendation involves considering when and how the eportfolio is introduced. Kjaer et al. (2006) support this identifying that a considerable investment of time is required when introducing an eportfolio package. Moores and Parks (2006) even acknowledge that eportfolio introduction may need to be kept to a minimum, or even delayed, early in a programme so as to not overwhelm students when they are already combating the introduction of learning management systems, simulated and virtual learning environments and digital communication tools. Both authors identified that the integration of the software in small components, introduced gradually throughout all three year levels, is showing greater signs of implementation than when it was introduced solely in third year in preparation for employment. Enabling students to develop a personal learning space is another important tip when integrating e-portfolio use. Moores and Parks (2010) explain that the majority of electronic methods of learning within universities are commonly controlled and monitored by the university. In contrast, an e-portfolio can remain private until the learner grants permission for another person to access their work (Ellaway and Masters, 2008). Whilst creativity is identified as essential for learning, the authors acknowledge that academic work often restricts this, and personal e-portfolio use may be a solution. Anecdotally however, the authors' experience shows that students predominantly put energies into professional learnings associated with assessment tasks, and not personal learnings. This leads to the next recommendation by Moores and Parks (2010) which states using various functions of e-portfolio software to submit assessments, in order to maximise motivation. Assessment is identified as being a strong motivator for engaging in technologies. E-portfolio implementations in the authors undergraduate programme are all
571
attached to assessment tasks to encourage integration and use in student learning. This contradicts the earlier recommendation of creating personal spaces that are not University controlled, and thus the authors acknowledge the need to reassess the focus placed on e-portfolio integration more as a learning space, rather than an assessment space. When using e-portfolios for assessment purposes, Moores and Parks (2010) advise that assessment guidelines should be transparent but not too prescriptive. There is a fine line between encouraging creativity and innovation, but still providing clarity on structure, size and required elements to include. E-portfolios are consistent with the growth in personalised and holistic approaches in education (Ellaway and Masters, 2008), and thus assessment guidelines need to be written with this in mind. The authors have consistently reassessed the marking guides used throughout the past three years to ensure there is sufficient guidance to what the e-portfolio task requires, however open enough to allow personal creativity and innovation. Moores and Parks (2010) also recommend providing students with clear guidance on confidentiality and the use of digital media. Nursing students are taught early in their undergraduate programmes the importance of maintaining patient and organisational confidentiality. However it has been the authors experience that this is often forgotten when it comes to e-portfolio development. It is important to provide clear guidelines on the sharing of electronic information with third parties, and their own personal and professional identity in the virtual world (Moores and Parks, 2010). Another tip to consider is that e-portfolios do not automatically teach reflective practice. E-portfolios have a strong capacity to rethink and analyse situations through reflective practice and learning from experience (Moores and Parks, 2010; Kjaer et al., 2006). However Moores and Parks (2010) acknowledge that for students to engage in the process effectively, they require a level of understanding of what reflective practice is and the skills required. Therefore this foundational knowledge is required to maximise the learning outcomes. Using the e-portfolio to give instantaneous electronic comments or feedback is another useful tip to increase student motivation (Moores and Park, 2010; Ellaway and Masters, 2008). Not only does early constructive feedback provide motivation, it can also be used by the student when reflecting on their progress. One author noted that during a reflective journaling exercise, students who received feedback early often progressed through the task more rapidly than those who had a delay between when the task was completed and feedback received. As discussed earlier, access to electronic mediums in order to engage with a digital e-portfolio is paramount to encouraging regular ongoing use of the e-portfolio software. Moores and Parks (2010) warn against the assumption that all university students, or all health care services, have access to a computer. Reflecting on practice is often most useful when the event is fresh in the students mind, and not all students own a mobile electronic device. Both authors identified this as a barrier to seamless integration of e-portfolio use in undergraduate studies. Another of Moores and Parks (2010) tips was to ensure the use of internal support available within the institution. Much of the literature on e-portfolios emphasise the importance of separating the support roles for pedagogy and technical help (Moores and Parks, 2010; Light et al., 2011; Skiba, 2000; Skiba et al., 2008). When these two elements are not addressed or supported by the institution, the authors attest to the risk that academic staff can be inundated by students with technical queries that are very time consuming. Moores and Parks (2010) advise that academic staff enrol the help of existing support services to support the use of software, and engage expertise in e-portfolio pedagogies to enable staff to focus on the reflective practice learning needs of the student. The final recommendation on Moores and Parks (2010) list is to not reinvent the wheel. Whilst considered common sense, many staff in their pressure or excitement to implement a concept can forget the fundamental process of exploring previous experiences and recommendations of others. Much time is wasted repeating mistakes or tackling
572
T. Andrews, C. Cole / Nurse Education Today 35 (2015) 568–572
barriers that could have been avoided or minimalized through sound research and preparation. The list above clearly addresses each of the hurdles identified within this paper, and the authors recognise the limitations within their own working environment that contributed to those pitfalls experienced. The introduction of the e-portfolio without strong pedagogical and technical support on its own instantly created a poor perceived value of the system by both staff and students. Tzeng (2011) and Kim and Kankanhalli (2009) clearly identifies the success of e-portfolio technology relies heavily on the users perceived epistemic, functional and contextual value. And perceived value reflects heavily on the ongoing ease of use and intention of use of the system. As with any new learning tool, careful consideration needs to be given to comprehensive planning, implementation, review and evaluation to either prevent the hurdles identified, or limit their impact on the quality of the portfolio produced and the learning attained from the process. And successful implementation of a digital portfolio demands a different approach to learning and teaching (Malita, 2009). Being agents of change bring with it the challenges of walking a path unknown, and highlight the need for a culture of financial, technological and pedagogical support as a basis for maintaining stability and moving forward. Conclusion Implementing any new technologies into an undergraduate curriculum is challenging on many levels, and in particular something as complex as a digital portfolio of learning. As each hurdle can impact upon another, both staff and students can struggle to maintain the energy required to continue to move forward after every step backward. Careful planning and adequate pedagogical and technical supports are paramount in minimising or limiting the impact that pitfalls can have on developing the skills and knowledge that surround e-portfolio development and learning. As the process of employment becomes more competitive, it is no longer enough to provide just certificates of achievement. As a legal and moral obligation, nurses are now required to provide evidence to demonstrate the process of those achievements and identify learning outcomes and professional development (Andre and Heartfield, 2011). As nursing industry slowly embraces e-portfolio use in all areas of health care across Australia, the pressure for the tertiary sector to provide students with the skills and knowledge to fulfil these attributes grows. References Andre, M., Heartfield, K., 2011. Nursing and Midwifery Portfolios: Evidence of Continuing Competence. 2nd ed. Elsevier Publishing, Sydney.
Buzzetto-More, N., Alade, A., 2008. The Pentagonal E-Portfolio Model for Selecting, Adopting, Building, and Implementing an E-Portfolio. J. inf. Technol. Educ. 7. Cleary, M., Horsfall, J., O'Hara-Aarons, M., Jackson, D., Hunt, G., 2011. The views of mental health nurses on continuing professional development. J. Clin. Nurs. 20 (23–24), 3561–3566. Davis, F., Bagozzi, R., Warshaw, P., 1989. User acceptance of computer technology: a comparison of two theoretical models. Manag. Sci. 35 (8), 982–1003. Drouard, J., 2010. Computer literacy, online experience or socioeconomic characteristics: what are the main determinant of broadband internet adoption and internet usage? Commun. Strateg. 80, 83–103. Ellaway, R., Masters, K., 2008. AMEE guide 32: e-Learning in medical education part 1: learning, teaching and assessment. Med. Teach. 30 (5), 455–473. Garrett, B., Jackson, C., 2006. A mobile clinical e-portfolio for nursing and medical students, using wireless personal digital assistants (PDAs). Nurse Educ. Pract. 6, 339–346. Garrett, B., MacPhee, M., Jackson, C., 2013. Evaluation of an eportfolio for the assessment of clinical competence in a baccalaureate nursing program. Nurse Educ. Today 33, 1207–1213. Goode, J., 2010. The digital identity divide: how technology knowledge impacts college students. New Media Soc. 12 (3), 497–513. Kim, H., Kankanhalli, A., 2009. Investigating user resistance to information system implementation: status quo bias perspective. MIS Q. 33, 567–582. Kjaer, N.K., Maagaard, R., Wied, S., 2006. Using an online portfolio in postgraduate training. Med. Teach. 28 (8), 708–712. Light, T., Chen, H., Ittelson, J., 2011. Documenting Learning with E-Portfolios: A Guide for College Instructors. Taylor and Francis, Hoboken. Lopez-Ferdandez, O., Rodriguez-Illera, J., 2009. Investigating university students adaptation to a digital learner course portfolio. Comput. Educ. 52, 608–616. Malita, L., 2009. E-portfolios in an educational and occupational context. Procedia Soc. Behav. Sci. 1, 2312–2316. Margaryan, A., Littlejohn, A., Vojt, G., 2011. Are digital natives a myth or reality? University students' use of digital technologies. Comput. Educ. 56, 429–440. Moores, A., Parks, M., 2010. Twelve tips for introducing e-portfolio’s with undergraduate students. Medical Teacher. 32, 46–49. Nelson, K., Courier, M., Joseph, G., 2011. An investigation of digital literacy needs of students. J. Inf. Syst. Educ. 22 (2), 95–109. Patrick-Williams, I., Bennett, R., 2010. The effectiveness of the professional portfolio in the hiring process of the associate degree nurse. Teach. Learn. Nurs. 5, 44–48. Pincombe, J., McKellar, L., Weise, M., Griner, E., Bewresford, G., 2010. Eportfolio in midwifery practice: “the way of the future”. Women Birth 23, 94–102. Poole, E., Chetty, M., Morgan, T., Grinter, R., Edwards, W., 2009. Computer help at home: methods and motivations for informal technical support. CHI, pp. 739–748. Ring, G., Weaver, B., Jones jnr, J., 2008. Electronic Portfolios: Engaged Students Create Multimedia-Rich Artifacts. Journal of the Research Center for Educational Technology 4 (2). Salajan, F., Schonwetter, D., Cleghorn, B., 2010. Student and faculty inter-generational digital divide: fact or fiction? Comput. Educ. 55, 1393–1403. Skiba, D., 2000. E-portfolios, Webfolio and e-dentity: promises and challenges. Nurs. Educ. Perspect. 26 (4), 246–247. Skiba, D., Connors, H., Jeffries, P., 2008. Information technologies and the transformation of nursing education. Nurs. Outlook 56, 225–230. Stefani, L., Mason, R., Pegler, C., 2007. The Educational Potential of E-Portfolios: Supporting Personal Development and Reflective Learning. Taylor & Francis, Hoboken. Tzeng, J., 2011. Perceived values and prospective users acceptance of prospective technology: the case of a career eportfolio system. Comput. Educ. 56, 157–165. Venkatesh, V., Davis, F., 2000. A theoretical extension of the technology acceptance model: four longitudinal field studies. Manag. Sci. 46 (2), 186–204. Waycott, J., Bennett, S., Kennedy, G., Dalgarno, B., Gray, K., 2010. Digital divide? Student and staff perceptions of information and communication technologies. Comput. Educ. 54, 1202–1211. Zhong, Z., 2011. From access to usage: the divide of self-reported digital skills among adolescents. Comput. Educ. 56 (3).
Contents lists available at ScienceDirect
Nurse Education Today journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/nedt
Review
Two steps forward, one step back: The intricacies of engaging with eportfolios in nursing undergraduate education Tulsa Andrews ⁎, Clare Cole Faculty of Health, Federation University, Australia
a r t i c l e
i n f o
Article history: Accepted 16 December 2014 Keywords: e-Portfolio Nursing Education Barriers Hurdles Reflections
a b s t r a c t Objectives: To share the experience of implementing and refining the use of e-portfolios into an undergraduate nursing degree. Design: This is a reflective piece that explores the hurdles experienced in introducing and maintaining e-portfolio's into higher education, particularly in undergraduate nursing curricula. Data Sources: Nil Review Methods: Review of the literature, and comparing and contrasting this against the experience of the authors. Results: Hurdles included access to computer and quality internet connections, along with the levels of IT literacy of staff, and the common misconception that all students are IT savvy. What was also evident was how the need for both pedagogical and technical support to both staff and students was paramount in achieving an understanding of the software, and the scope and perspective of e-portfolio pedagogy. With each of these hurdles, staff reluctance to engage in e-portfolio use in the tertiary sector was evident. On reflection of each of these challenges, the authors identified that their experience mirrored other tertiary institutions in that a single hurdle alone is not responsible for fragmented e-portfolio implementation, but a combination of factors. Through exploring recommendations from other tertiary institutions, the authors recognize the limitations within their own working environment that contributed to the pitfalls experienced. Conclusion: Despite e-portfolios being introduced into higher education for over a decade, its' successful implementation into undergraduate nursing curricula continues to be fraught with pitfalls, creating the sense of moving backwards more so than forwards. As with any new learning tool, careful consideration needs to be given to comprehensive planning, implementation, review and evaluation to either prevent the hurdles identified, or limit their impact on the quality of the portfolio produced and the learning attained from the process. © 2015 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
Introduction This paper is a reflection based on the experiences of two lecturers developing and implementing the use of e-portfolios into an undergraduate nursing curriculum in a regional Victorian University. This paper highlights the challenges and barriers to successful implementation of e-portfolio technologies, where there is varying support and knowledge available. Whilst the development of using an e-portfolio has been a progressive one, it has not been without considerable frustrations and hurdles, giving the impression at times of moving backward rather than forward. In the authors' undergraduate nursing programme, the e-portfolio has been introduced across all year levels and in some areas is a major piece of assessment. The purpose of the e-portfolio is as a development
⁎ Corresponding author at: Faculty of Health, Federation University, P.O. Box 663, Mt Helen, Victoria 3353, Australia. Tel.: +61 3 5327 9654; fax: +61 3 5327 9719. E-mail address: [email protected] (T. Andrews).
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.nedt.2014.12.011 0260-6917/© 2015 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
or continuous improvement framework, including reflective aspects of self-assessment, planning and progression. This may include journaling where students document and monitor skill development through assessing and learning through experience (Garrett and Jackson, 2006; Light et al., 2011). Another is identification of learning opportunities, strengths, and weaknesses as they relate to the Australian Nursing and Midwifery Council (ANMC) competencies (Patrick-Williams and Bennett, 2010). It also includes the collection and showcasing of competencies and capabilities for prospective employers. An e-portfolio focuses on providing a combination of both storing products and the process of learning (Malita, 2009). As a job-seeking tool, the e-portfolio allows for the demonstration of current and contemporary practice; enhances and encourages reflection; is accumulated over time and is contextual based; and can be validated by others (Andre and Heartfield, 2011). In terms of self-determination it enables reflection and framing of competence and achievement; substantiation of claims with supporting evidence; assessment of personal learning needs; development of learning and career plan and evaluation of achievement (Andre and Heartfield, 2011).
T. Andrews, C. Cole / Nurse Education Today 35 (2015) 568–572
Some of the pedagogical benefits identified from e-portfolios include authentic and experiential learning, competency-based education, lifelong learning, autodidactism, and self-directed learning (Buzzetto-More and Alade, 2008; Ring et al., 2008). Skiba et al. (2008) highlight that nursing is often an early adopter of educational innovations. However, compared to America and European Countries, Australia is behind in adopting e-portfolios as a means of continuing professional development (CPD), assessment in tertiary undergraduate nursing degrees, and for use in the process of obtaining employment.
569
The role of e-portfolios' and benefits for learning are highlighted throughout the literature, however the introduction and ongoing inclusion of its use in an undergraduate nursing curriculum has not been a seamless process. Issues such as pedagogical and technical support for students and students, computer or internet access and IT literacy of users, along with staff reluctance and limited knowledge of the software or scope of e-portfolio pedagogy are just some of the hurdles encountered by the authors over a three year period. The success of e-portfolio inclusion within the curriculum has been influenced heavily by these hurdles, and addressing these pitfalls is paramount in any ongoing progression forward.
The Role of E-Portfolios Hurdles There is increasing emphasis in the nursing profession, to demonstrate a student's commitment to accountability and continuing professional development (CPD) (Cleary et al., 2011). This is demonstrated in the registering bodies' commitment to CPD targets and the burden of proof on the individual to establish educational hours. An e-portfolio is a transferable product that students will be able to use into their careers to demonstrate CPD and personal and social responsibilities in the nursing profession (Light et al., 2011). Ideally, e-portfolios in undergraduate curriculum are best introduced as a scaffolded task. This includes the three stages of digital competence, digital usage and digital transformation (Nelson et al., 2011). First year nursing students are expected to develop digital competence through the development of basic software navigational skills and an understanding of the pedagogy behind its use; second year students develop digital usage through integration of their skills to develop bodies of work; and third year students progress through to digital transformation via demonstration of reflective practice and development of innovative and creative student centred learning projects (Nelson et al., 2011). At the authors' university, the aim for first year undergraduates was to introduce students to the pedagogy of e-portfolios and familiarisation with the software. This included basic development of profiles, images and using the e-portfolio space to store professional representations of themselves and examples of learning. The purpose was to integrate the complexity of the software usage gradually, so as to not overwhelm students along with a plethora of other technologies they encounter in an undergraduate nursing programme. Despite the assumption that our students are digitally savvy, the development of digital competence can be challenging for many students (Salajan et al., 2010). The progression into second year aimed at developing digital usage, through the introduction of journaling and creating digital pages to showcase learning as an assessment task. The value of using an e-portfolio for journaling is that it records reflections of interactions related to the stages of journey or development of students and progress. As an assessment task, it provides a combination of assessment of learning and assessment for learning (Light et al., 2011). The qualitative nature of the task means that it is student-centred and based in a constructivist approach. In a constructivist approach, the emphasis is placed on the learner and their needs, which then engages students and encourages self-reliant learners to be able to construct their own knowledge (Stefani et al., 2007). In the final year of the undergraduate programme, the e-portfolio aims to develop a sense of self-assessment performed by the student, to cultivate digital transformation. Through bringing together the competencies and examples of learning from their undergraduate studies and other professional capabilities, students are able to develop a digital portfolio for the purpose of job employment and applying for graduate positions the following year. This function of the e-portfolio brings with it credibility from an institutional perspective to the job seeker and many countries are already using e-portfolios for this purpose (Light et al., 2011). It is also recognised in the literature that those people with e-portfolios are more likely to succeed in interview processes as they are more aware of their strengths and weaknesses and are able to demonstrate higher levels of self-assessment and metacognitive skills (Light et al., 2011).
Provision of Pedagogical and Technical Support E-portfolio support includes both the pedagogy of purpose and technical support for the software used. Literature states that the introduction of e-portfolios needs to be integrated and understood by both student and staff (Light et al., 2011; Salajan et al., 2010; Skiba, 2000). It is also acknowledged that academically weaker students need considerably more support and scaffolding around the task to become self-directed (Stefani et al., 2007). It is worth also noting that social networks are often used for IT support, including familial and intimate social networks. Research by Poole et al. (2009) shows that mature students are more likely to use formal support networks whereas younger adults are more inclined to use their social and informal support networks. This highlights the importance of having appropriate support available for students and staff to successfully implement e-portfolios into an undergraduate programme. Implementing infrastructure support for students and staff is something that has been challenging and time-consuming for the authors. The first year of introduction saw the assistance available to staff and students as extremely limited, with provision of technical support only. This resulted in much angst from both staff and students, and the quality of the work produced being of poor standard. Staff were reluctant to continue with its use the following semester, and required much coaxing to persist. The following year saw that both the pedagogical and technical support increase extensively, and this was highlighted in a significant increase in the use of the technology across the curriculum, and in the improved quality of the work produced. Staff were able to adequately address the pedagogical support that promotes and develops deeper understanding, and student outcomes reflected this with high quality use of all e-portfolio components. This year has again seen a reduction in the support available to both staff and students, risking the ongoing backing of staff, and the quality of e-portfolio development. Inadequate integrative support and appropriate student and faculty development are highlighted by Skiba et al. (2008) as being a major influence in adoption of e-portfolios. Poor IT Literacy of Students/Staff It is assumed that younger generations will be more digitally savvy and have a higher degree of aptitude when using technologies (Salajan et al., 2010). There is a heavy reliance on technology for social media purposes but this does not necessarily translate to having the appropriate skills to facilitate complex IT challenges such as an e-portfolio. It is often assumed that the digital native, born after 1980, will naturally be highly trained and skilful in using technology (Margaryan et al., 2011; Salajan et al., 2010). However in the experiences of the authors, this was not the case, as the digital natives in the course struggled with the conceptualisation and development of the e-portfolio. The use of the software available was foreign to the whole student cohort and required time intensive investment on behalf of the students and staff to achieve a desirable outcome. Margaryan et al. (2011) caution against assuming that digital natives are more comfortable in participating in new technologies.
570
T. Andrews, C. Cole / Nurse Education Today 35 (2015) 568–572
IT literacy was also found to be limited within the staff involved in the delivery of this technology. Many staff were digital immigrants, being born before 1980 (Salajan et al., 2010) and this posed problems as the IT support for staff was initially limited and therefore was challenging to develop a comprehensive understanding of the software. The authors found that as additional support became available, and staff literacy skills and confidence in the use of the Mahara software within the discipline also increased.
for both pedagogical and technical e-portfolio development, and thus was more inclined to continue with its use, and encouraged integration into other courses in other year levels as a result. Moores and Parks (2010) acknowledge that implementation of e-portfolios with minimal technical support impacts greatly on academic staff and their willingness to utilise the software in the future.
Computer and/or Internet Access
It is evident throughout the literature that the strength and success of any intervention, lies in the perceived value that is placed upon it by the consumer before the product is used or bought (Tzeng, 2011; Lopez-Fernandez and Rodriguez-Illera, 2009; Garrett et al., 2013; Kim and Kankanhalli, 2009). Davis et al. (1989) address that it is the user's internal beliefs and attitudes which ultimately influence the adoption of technology and its usage. The Technology Acceptance Model identifies that the usage of a software package is being influenced by two major beliefs: the perceived usefulness and perceived ease of use (Davis et al., 1989; Venkatesh and Davis, 2000). Tzeng's (2011) work extends this with specific focus on the correlation between the perceived usefulness of a system, perceived ease of use of the system and subsequent intention to use the system. This also supports the work conducted by Kim and Kankanhalli (2009) stating that the greater the perceived value is, the higher the levels of satisfaction and trust with the innovation, and therefore decreasing the resistance to any implementation issues. In undergraduate nursing programmes, the use of eportfolio's as a framework for showcasing learning, sets its foundations on the ability to deliver the pedagogy that underpins its value. Garrett et al. (2013) and Lopez-Ferdandez and Rodriguez-Illera (2009) both explore how a negative perception of value can impact the quality and use of eportfolio development. The authors both recognise how a student's perception of value has a significant influence on whether the students view the development as just an assessment task, as a tool for prospective employment, or as a skill for life-long learning. For the latter to occur, the eportfolio development needs to be integrated throughout their programme and beyond, with a focus on learning reflection, and not just to document competencies and capabilities. Garrett et al. (2013) highlight the need for comprehensive training in a pedagogical approach to maximise successful e-portfolio implementation.
The introduction of the internet has seen unprecedented access to knowledge and information, which has allowed regional and rural students to enjoy the same access to tertiary education opportunities as their metropolitan counterparts. However factors such as gender, socioeconomic status, geographical location, and educational level all influence the access and use of technology, creating a digital divide (Goode, 2010; Waycott et al., 2010; Zhong, 2011). What is also important to recognise is that there are also disparities in the nature of the use and appropriation of these opportunities, which remain within the population of internet users (Drouard, 2010). There is often an assumption that students at a university have a computer and access to the internet at home, which is not necessarily the case, and therefore becomes a question of equity. Some of the cohort of students involved in this course did not have reliable access to the internet or the internet connection was not sufficient to be able to complete tasks on line due to limited download capacities. This meant that they were forced to spend more time on campus to complete tasks. Margaryan et al. (2011) identify that for use of technology to be successful, pedagogic design, the student's social background and life influences are important to consider and support. Staff Reluctance Whilst often the focus of e-portfolio introduction is centred on student needs, Skiba (2000) highlights that success hinges on the culture of the faulty, and the importance of staff understanding and supporting the portfolio process. The incorporation of e-portfolios into tertiary curriculum requires a fundamental commitment within the institution to provide a vision and foundation for its integration. This includes both academic and technical support staff. Staff understanding of e-portfolio pedagogy is paramount in students maximising the use of e-portfolios to develop thinking and learning over time and how to showcase competencies and capabilities to university staff and prospective employers (Malita, 2009). In order to achieve a culture that supports e-portfolio use, staff need to perceive their value. The perceived value of e-portfolios impacts on staff engagement with e-portfolio use and their willingness to adjust their teaching, along with the development of strategies to support students in creating and maintaining their e-portfolios (Davis et al., 1989; Malita, 2009; Venkatesh and Davis, 2000). Tzeng (2011) identified that the acceptance of technologies are centred on the perceived values of prospective users, which include both academic staff and students. Staff commitment, or ‘buy in’ to the perceived value of the tool and its usefulness, can directly relate to the student interest and acceptance of e-portfolio use. Staff experience with the use of technologies in teaching and learning can also greatly influence their support of the e-portfolio process. Previous success and failure with the use of technology can greatly influence a staff member's reluctance or enthusiasm in utilising eportfolio software. For both authors, the experience of e-portfolio development has been varied, with differing technical support offered each year significantly influencing the enthusiasm for software use. One author experienced minimal technical support for teacher and student software issues, creating reluctance to use the software the following year. In contrast the other author was provided with significant support
Limited Scope or Perspective of E-Portfolio Pedagogy
Lack of Software Knowledge The software used for e-portfolio development can also impact on the success of its implementation. There are numerous e-portfolio packages on the market, and most higher education students are required to utilise that provided by the institution. Davis et al. (1989) identify this as a hurdle as the consumers of these packages are often unwilling to use the available systems. Therefore the complexity of the system used, coupled with the computer literacy issues mentioned earlier can create an environment that requires considerable support. Pincombe et al. (2010) explored the use of digital portfolio's within undergraduate nursing studies and found that students voiced a significant learning challenge and issue with comprehension within the first year of the software being used. Whilst familiarity with the software improved the students comfort with use, students also noted that aspects of the software did not compliment their purpose of use. Pincombe et al.'s (2010) study identified that simply adapting a standard e-portfolio package may not be sufficient to the needs of their students. Both authors have found that the university provided e-portfolio software of Mahara was complex when viewed or taught as a whole package. Experience throughout the past three years has identified far greater student uptake and understanding when the software is introduced in small components and over a period of time. Just as an eportfolio software package may not fit the objectives of all users, so too does the provision of software knowledge not fit the learning needs of all students. Facilitating improved software knowledge has
T. Andrews, C. Cole / Nurse Education Today 35 (2015) 568–572
been best achieved with an array of forums such as narrated and on-line tutorials, instruction sheets, computer lab classes and individual appointments to cater for the diverse learning needs of students. Reflections Despite e-portfolios being introduced into higher education for over a decade, its' successful implementation into undergraduate nursing curricula continues to be fraught with pitfalls. What becomes evident is that a single hurdle alone is not responsible for fragmented e-portfolio implementation, but a combination of factors that can create the sense of moving backwards more so than forwards, and often to the detriment of the technology. Accepting the true value and use of e-portfolios as a digital learning tool, requires not only the technical support resources, but a foundation of pedagogical understanding. As a result of evaluating the introduction of an e-portfolio system into their own Faculty of Health, Moores and Parks (2010) identified twelve tips for introducing eportfolio's with undergraduate students. The first tip was to identify the added value of using an e-portfolio through making the link between e-portfolio development as not just an electronic tool for assessment tasks, but a life-long learning tool to support ongoing professional development. Moores and Parks (2010) emphasise the importance of exploring what added value the electronic platform can bring to student learning. Both authors noted that this realisation occurs predominantly in third year students as they understand the value their eportfolio work plays in the employment application process. The second recommendation made is considering the long and short term use of an eportfolio. Moores and Parks (2010) state that staff needed to differentiate between skills required for short term use in the development of assessment tasks, with that of long term use of employment applications and recording engagement with CPD. The authors identify that this, along with understanding the added value of an e-portfolio, is strongly associated with the capacity to provide pedagogical understanding as part of the process. Student ‘buy in’ was far greater when the foundations of e-portfolio pedagogy were integrated within the process, than just technical support alone. The third recommendation involves considering when and how the eportfolio is introduced. Kjaer et al. (2006) support this identifying that a considerable investment of time is required when introducing an eportfolio package. Moores and Parks (2006) even acknowledge that eportfolio introduction may need to be kept to a minimum, or even delayed, early in a programme so as to not overwhelm students when they are already combating the introduction of learning management systems, simulated and virtual learning environments and digital communication tools. Both authors identified that the integration of the software in small components, introduced gradually throughout all three year levels, is showing greater signs of implementation than when it was introduced solely in third year in preparation for employment. Enabling students to develop a personal learning space is another important tip when integrating e-portfolio use. Moores and Parks (2010) explain that the majority of electronic methods of learning within universities are commonly controlled and monitored by the university. In contrast, an e-portfolio can remain private until the learner grants permission for another person to access their work (Ellaway and Masters, 2008). Whilst creativity is identified as essential for learning, the authors acknowledge that academic work often restricts this, and personal e-portfolio use may be a solution. Anecdotally however, the authors' experience shows that students predominantly put energies into professional learnings associated with assessment tasks, and not personal learnings. This leads to the next recommendation by Moores and Parks (2010) which states using various functions of e-portfolio software to submit assessments, in order to maximise motivation. Assessment is identified as being a strong motivator for engaging in technologies. E-portfolio implementations in the authors undergraduate programme are all
571
attached to assessment tasks to encourage integration and use in student learning. This contradicts the earlier recommendation of creating personal spaces that are not University controlled, and thus the authors acknowledge the need to reassess the focus placed on e-portfolio integration more as a learning space, rather than an assessment space. When using e-portfolios for assessment purposes, Moores and Parks (2010) advise that assessment guidelines should be transparent but not too prescriptive. There is a fine line between encouraging creativity and innovation, but still providing clarity on structure, size and required elements to include. E-portfolios are consistent with the growth in personalised and holistic approaches in education (Ellaway and Masters, 2008), and thus assessment guidelines need to be written with this in mind. The authors have consistently reassessed the marking guides used throughout the past three years to ensure there is sufficient guidance to what the e-portfolio task requires, however open enough to allow personal creativity and innovation. Moores and Parks (2010) also recommend providing students with clear guidance on confidentiality and the use of digital media. Nursing students are taught early in their undergraduate programmes the importance of maintaining patient and organisational confidentiality. However it has been the authors experience that this is often forgotten when it comes to e-portfolio development. It is important to provide clear guidelines on the sharing of electronic information with third parties, and their own personal and professional identity in the virtual world (Moores and Parks, 2010). Another tip to consider is that e-portfolios do not automatically teach reflective practice. E-portfolios have a strong capacity to rethink and analyse situations through reflective practice and learning from experience (Moores and Parks, 2010; Kjaer et al., 2006). However Moores and Parks (2010) acknowledge that for students to engage in the process effectively, they require a level of understanding of what reflective practice is and the skills required. Therefore this foundational knowledge is required to maximise the learning outcomes. Using the e-portfolio to give instantaneous electronic comments or feedback is another useful tip to increase student motivation (Moores and Park, 2010; Ellaway and Masters, 2008). Not only does early constructive feedback provide motivation, it can also be used by the student when reflecting on their progress. One author noted that during a reflective journaling exercise, students who received feedback early often progressed through the task more rapidly than those who had a delay between when the task was completed and feedback received. As discussed earlier, access to electronic mediums in order to engage with a digital e-portfolio is paramount to encouraging regular ongoing use of the e-portfolio software. Moores and Parks (2010) warn against the assumption that all university students, or all health care services, have access to a computer. Reflecting on practice is often most useful when the event is fresh in the students mind, and not all students own a mobile electronic device. Both authors identified this as a barrier to seamless integration of e-portfolio use in undergraduate studies. Another of Moores and Parks (2010) tips was to ensure the use of internal support available within the institution. Much of the literature on e-portfolios emphasise the importance of separating the support roles for pedagogy and technical help (Moores and Parks, 2010; Light et al., 2011; Skiba, 2000; Skiba et al., 2008). When these two elements are not addressed or supported by the institution, the authors attest to the risk that academic staff can be inundated by students with technical queries that are very time consuming. Moores and Parks (2010) advise that academic staff enrol the help of existing support services to support the use of software, and engage expertise in e-portfolio pedagogies to enable staff to focus on the reflective practice learning needs of the student. The final recommendation on Moores and Parks (2010) list is to not reinvent the wheel. Whilst considered common sense, many staff in their pressure or excitement to implement a concept can forget the fundamental process of exploring previous experiences and recommendations of others. Much time is wasted repeating mistakes or tackling
572
T. Andrews, C. Cole / Nurse Education Today 35 (2015) 568–572
barriers that could have been avoided or minimalized through sound research and preparation. The list above clearly addresses each of the hurdles identified within this paper, and the authors recognise the limitations within their own working environment that contributed to those pitfalls experienced. The introduction of the e-portfolio without strong pedagogical and technical support on its own instantly created a poor perceived value of the system by both staff and students. Tzeng (2011) and Kim and Kankanhalli (2009) clearly identifies the success of e-portfolio technology relies heavily on the users perceived epistemic, functional and contextual value. And perceived value reflects heavily on the ongoing ease of use and intention of use of the system. As with any new learning tool, careful consideration needs to be given to comprehensive planning, implementation, review and evaluation to either prevent the hurdles identified, or limit their impact on the quality of the portfolio produced and the learning attained from the process. And successful implementation of a digital portfolio demands a different approach to learning and teaching (Malita, 2009). Being agents of change bring with it the challenges of walking a path unknown, and highlight the need for a culture of financial, technological and pedagogical support as a basis for maintaining stability and moving forward. Conclusion Implementing any new technologies into an undergraduate curriculum is challenging on many levels, and in particular something as complex as a digital portfolio of learning. As each hurdle can impact upon another, both staff and students can struggle to maintain the energy required to continue to move forward after every step backward. Careful planning and adequate pedagogical and technical supports are paramount in minimising or limiting the impact that pitfalls can have on developing the skills and knowledge that surround e-portfolio development and learning. As the process of employment becomes more competitive, it is no longer enough to provide just certificates of achievement. As a legal and moral obligation, nurses are now required to provide evidence to demonstrate the process of those achievements and identify learning outcomes and professional development (Andre and Heartfield, 2011). As nursing industry slowly embraces e-portfolio use in all areas of health care across Australia, the pressure for the tertiary sector to provide students with the skills and knowledge to fulfil these attributes grows. References Andre, M., Heartfield, K., 2011. Nursing and Midwifery Portfolios: Evidence of Continuing Competence. 2nd ed. Elsevier Publishing, Sydney.
Buzzetto-More, N., Alade, A., 2008. The Pentagonal E-Portfolio Model for Selecting, Adopting, Building, and Implementing an E-Portfolio. J. inf. Technol. Educ. 7. Cleary, M., Horsfall, J., O'Hara-Aarons, M., Jackson, D., Hunt, G., 2011. The views of mental health nurses on continuing professional development. J. Clin. Nurs. 20 (23–24), 3561–3566. Davis, F., Bagozzi, R., Warshaw, P., 1989. User acceptance of computer technology: a comparison of two theoretical models. Manag. Sci. 35 (8), 982–1003. Drouard, J., 2010. Computer literacy, online experience or socioeconomic characteristics: what are the main determinant of broadband internet adoption and internet usage? Commun. Strateg. 80, 83–103. Ellaway, R., Masters, K., 2008. AMEE guide 32: e-Learning in medical education part 1: learning, teaching and assessment. Med. Teach. 30 (5), 455–473. Garrett, B., Jackson, C., 2006. A mobile clinical e-portfolio for nursing and medical students, using wireless personal digital assistants (PDAs). Nurse Educ. Pract. 6, 339–346. Garrett, B., MacPhee, M., Jackson, C., 2013. Evaluation of an eportfolio for the assessment of clinical competence in a baccalaureate nursing program. Nurse Educ. Today 33, 1207–1213. Goode, J., 2010. The digital identity divide: how technology knowledge impacts college students. New Media Soc. 12 (3), 497–513. Kim, H., Kankanhalli, A., 2009. Investigating user resistance to information system implementation: status quo bias perspective. MIS Q. 33, 567–582. Kjaer, N.K., Maagaard, R., Wied, S., 2006. Using an online portfolio in postgraduate training. Med. Teach. 28 (8), 708–712. Light, T., Chen, H., Ittelson, J., 2011. Documenting Learning with E-Portfolios: A Guide for College Instructors. Taylor and Francis, Hoboken. Lopez-Ferdandez, O., Rodriguez-Illera, J., 2009. Investigating university students adaptation to a digital learner course portfolio. Comput. Educ. 52, 608–616. Malita, L., 2009. E-portfolios in an educational and occupational context. Procedia Soc. Behav. Sci. 1, 2312–2316. Margaryan, A., Littlejohn, A., Vojt, G., 2011. Are digital natives a myth or reality? University students' use of digital technologies. Comput. Educ. 56, 429–440. Moores, A., Parks, M., 2010. Twelve tips for introducing e-portfolio’s with undergraduate students. Medical Teacher. 32, 46–49. Nelson, K., Courier, M., Joseph, G., 2011. An investigation of digital literacy needs of students. J. Inf. Syst. Educ. 22 (2), 95–109. Patrick-Williams, I., Bennett, R., 2010. The effectiveness of the professional portfolio in the hiring process of the associate degree nurse. Teach. Learn. Nurs. 5, 44–48. Pincombe, J., McKellar, L., Weise, M., Griner, E., Bewresford, G., 2010. Eportfolio in midwifery practice: “the way of the future”. Women Birth 23, 94–102. Poole, E., Chetty, M., Morgan, T., Grinter, R., Edwards, W., 2009. Computer help at home: methods and motivations for informal technical support. CHI, pp. 739–748. Ring, G., Weaver, B., Jones jnr, J., 2008. Electronic Portfolios: Engaged Students Create Multimedia-Rich Artifacts. Journal of the Research Center for Educational Technology 4 (2). Salajan, F., Schonwetter, D., Cleghorn, B., 2010. Student and faculty inter-generational digital divide: fact or fiction? Comput. Educ. 55, 1393–1403. Skiba, D., 2000. E-portfolios, Webfolio and e-dentity: promises and challenges. Nurs. Educ. Perspect. 26 (4), 246–247. Skiba, D., Connors, H., Jeffries, P., 2008. Information technologies and the transformation of nursing education. Nurs. Outlook 56, 225–230. Stefani, L., Mason, R., Pegler, C., 2007. The Educational Potential of E-Portfolios: Supporting Personal Development and Reflective Learning. Taylor & Francis, Hoboken. Tzeng, J., 2011. Perceived values and prospective users acceptance of prospective technology: the case of a career eportfolio system. Comput. Educ. 56, 157–165. Venkatesh, V., Davis, F., 2000. A theoretical extension of the technology acceptance model: four longitudinal field studies. Manag. Sci. 46 (2), 186–204. Waycott, J., Bennett, S., Kennedy, G., Dalgarno, B., Gray, K., 2010. Digital divide? Student and staff perceptions of information and communication technologies. Comput. Educ. 54, 1202–1211. Zhong, Z., 2011. From access to usage: the divide of self-reported digital skills among adolescents. Comput. Educ. 56 (3).