Learning Outcomes Assessment via Electronic Portfolios
ISBN: 978-1-78190-060-4, eISBN: 978-1-78190-061-1
Publication date: 9 August 2012
Abstract
Accreditation agencies both institutional and professional (such as the American Library Association) have asked educators to demonstrate student learning outcomes for every academic program that they are assessing, and that they use the data gathered for continuous improvement of programs. This chapter reports on the development of an electronic portfolio (ePortfolio) structure for accomplishing an assessment process within a school of library and information science. From the student side, the portfolio prompts them to select work that they feel is their best effort for each program outcome such as “assist and educate users.” From the faculty side, all items for a given outcome can be downloaded and assessed quantitatively and qualitatively so as to arrive at an understanding of how well the program as a whole is doing, with sufficient detail to guide specific improvement decisions. During design, researchers employed a sequential qualitative feedback system to pose tasks (usability testing) and gather commentaries (through interviews) from students while faculty debated the efficacy of this approach and its place within the school's curricular structure. The local end product was a usable portfolio system implemented within a course management system (Oncourse/Sakai). The generalizable outcome is an understanding of key elements necessary for ePortfolios to function as a program-level assessment system: a place for students to select and store artifacts, a way for faculty to access and review the artifacts, simple aggregations of scoring and qualitative information, and a feedback loop of results into program design for improved student learning.
Keywords
Citation
Applegate, R. and Irwin, M.M. (2012), "Learning Outcomes Assessment via Electronic Portfolios", Woodsworth, A. and Penniman, W.D. (Ed.) Advances in Librarianship (Advances in Librarianship, Vol. 35), Emerald Group Publishing Limited, Leeds, pp. 135-150. https://doi.org/10.1108/S0065-2830(2012)0000035010
Publisher
:Emerald Group Publishing Limited
Copyright © 2012, Emerald Group Publishing Limited