The conference started with my mentor reviewing the plan that I put together with input from the AP English IV teacher. He did not have any specific questions about the plan but asked me to start the conversation about the plan. I began by reviewing the process completed to evaluate the different resources that were available for the ePortfolios: campus server, campus Moodle system, Microsoft Live, Google sites, and Wikispaces.
As I reviewed the pros and cons of these resources, he brought up the District’s on-going conversation about what online resources to allow students to access and the strong opinion and belief that any such resources be housed in-district in order to ensure the students’ safety and privacy of their data. In the beginning, the ePortfolio will be work in progress. Since we would want peers to comment on specific content of the ePortfolio, we need a resource that will permit this type of access. On the other hand, as the ePortfolios morph into one that is more reflective in nature, the “challenge in this process is to keep these reflections confidential. The personal, private reflections of the learner need to be guarded and not published in a public medium” (Barrett, H., 2000). To handle both ePortfolio situations, he encouraged me to continue this conversation with the network analyst as to the requirements of the action research and what options is available in-district that may serve our needs.
Along these lines, we talked about the parent letter that has been drafted. He recommended that we include wording about using outside resources and that we would make every effort to instruct the students on appropriate choices to help ensure their safety. Also needed to include encouragement for parents to be aware of Internet safety so they could monitor the students at home. This might include websites for the parents to learn about how to keep their student’s privacy protected.
When we talked about the different assessments, I asked for guidance about the best way to create the focus groups. Was it better to create small (5-10 students) heterogeneous groups or large groups (20 students)? The mentor’s response was creating small groups of students who are comfortable with each other and would be willing to share information. Once the data is collected and compiled, we might want to share the results with each class, to validate the information.
After our conversations, my mentor brought up the focus of the study. He believed that the stated focus is more of a statement of measurement rather than outcome. He felt that students understanding about how they learned should be the main focus of the inquiry. We discussed the idea of having the students doing reflection on their learning and how they learn. In doing this type of meta-cognitive thinking, the students should be developing the skills to be successful life long learners. The secondary focus is the use of the ePortfolios to improve the students’ exams scores. The results of (hopefully) the improvement in test scores, demonstrates the success of the students using the ePortfolios to develop the meta-cognitive skills. I will need to work on the wording of the inquiry question and refine it.
My mentor’s final suggestion was to have a gathering at the end of the project with administrators, parents, and students to share the work they had done (presentation ePortfolio). It also should be a celebration of the students’ learning and contribution to the research.
Barrett, H. C. (2000). Create your own electronic portfolio: using off-the-shelf software to showcase your own or student work. Learning & Leading with Technology. Retrieved on 11/30/2010. Retrieved from http://electronicportfolios.com/portfolios/iste2k.html.
No comments:
Post a Comment