You are here:

US vs European E-folio Design: Investigating a Dichotomy
PROCEEDINGS

, School of Education/Boston University, United States ; , University of Navarra, Spain

Society for Information Technology & Teacher Education International Conference, in Phoenix, AZ, USA ISBN 978-1-880094-55-6 Publisher: Association for the Advancement of Computing in Education (AACE), Chesapeake, VA

Abstract

This paper reports an investigation into an apparent dichotomy in designing and utilizing efolios for personal growth and collaboration as opposed to its use for assessment, licensure, and other "high stakes" purposes. Napper and Barrett (2004) note this distinction by describing different approaches to efolio design in the US and Europe. The trend in Europe, they claim, is toward utilizing efolios for "life long learning, professional development, career planning, recording achievement, and community development," while the trend in the US, is toward product-oriented standards and accountability. The investigation found that standards and assessment-oriented approaches to electronic portfolios, deemed a "product" approach, were more prevalent in the US. The forces of a "process" oriented approach featuring reflection, responding to open-ended questions, self-assessment, and mentoring were found to be more common in Europe. These findings support the conclusion that there is indeed a dichotomy in the two geographically defined approaches.

Citation

Whittier, D. & Lara, S. (2005). US vs European E-folio Design: Investigating a Dichotomy. In C. Crawford, R. Carlsen, I. Gibson, K. McFerrin, J. Price, R. Weber & D. Willis (Eds.), Proceedings of SITE 2005--Society for Information Technology & Teacher Education International Conference (pp. 241-246). Phoenix, AZ, USA: Association for the Advancement of Computing in Education (AACE). Retrieved November 17, 2019 from .

Keywords

References

View References & Citations Map

These references have been extracted automatically and may have some errors. Signed in users can suggest corrections to these mistakes.

Suggest Corrections to References