You are here:

Teacher Candidates’ Attitudes and Perceptions towards Electronic Portfolio Process
PROCEEDINGS

, , Firat University, Turkey

Society for Information Technology & Teacher Education International Conference, in San Diego, CA, USA ISBN 978-1-880094-78-5 Publisher: Association for the Advancement of Computing in Education (AACE), Waynesville, NC USA

Full Text

Abstract

Teacher candidates’ attitudes and perceptions towards electronic portfolio process were investigated. For this purpose, 33 teacher candidates were selected based on certain criteria. Qualitative approach was used. The participants used a portal, which was developed to serve as e-portfolio tools, for five weeks. After the application, semi-structured interviews were conducted on one-on-one base in order to determine their perspectives and attitudes toward the e-portfolio process. The results showed that that electronic portfolio process was perceived as a desired teaching process; and the participants developed positive attitudes towards this process. In addition, being first time users of e-portfolio had implications on their perceptions and attitudes toward the process. Moreover, the findings showed that e-portfolio should be a part of teacher education and included in the policies of education institutes.

Citation

Demirli, C. & Gurol, M. (2010). Teacher Candidates’ Attitudes and Perceptions towards Electronic Portfolio Process. In D. Gibson & B. Dodge (Eds.), Proceedings of SITE 2010--Society for Information Technology & Teacher Education International Conference (pp. 1412-1417). San Diego, CA, USA: Association for the Advancement of Computing in Education (AACE). Retrieved May 17, 2022 from .

Keywords

References

View References & Citations Map
  1. Bredo, E. (2000). Reconsidering Social Constructivism: the Relevance of George Herbart Mead’s Interactionism. (Ed: D.C. Philips). Constructivism in Education: Opinions and Second Opinions on Controversial Issues, Chicago Illinois: University of Chicago Press, (pp. 127-157).
  2. Bringer, J.D., Johnston, L.H. & Brackenridge, C.H. (2004). Maximizing Transparency in a Doctoral Thesis!: The Complexities of Writing About the Use of QSR NVIVO within a Grounded Theory Study. Qualitative Research. 4 (2), (pp. 247-265).
  3. Cobb, P. (1996). Where is the Mind? A Coordination of Socio-cultural and Cognitive Perspectives. (Ed. C.T. Fosnot). Constructivism: Theory, Perspectives and Practices, NY: Teacher College Press., (pp. 34-52).
  4. Corbin, J. & Strauss, A.L. (1990). Grounded Theory Research: Procedures, Canons, and Evaluative Criteria. Qualitative Sociology. 13 (1), (pp. 3-21).
  5. Glaser, B.G. (1999). The Future of Grounded Theory. Qualitative Health Research. November 1999, 9 (6), (pp. 836–845).
  6. MacMillan, K. (2005). More Than Just Coding? Evaluating CAQDAS in a Discourse Analysis of News Texts. Forum Qualitative Sozialforschung / Forum: Qualitative Social Research, 6 (3), Art. 25. Paulson, F.L.; Paulson, P.R. & Meyer, C.A. (1991). What Makes A Portfolio, A Portfolio?. Educational Leadership, February, (pp. 60-69).
  7. Richardson, J. (1997). Constructivist Teacher Education: Building New Understandings. London-Washington D.C.: The Falmer Press.
  8. Strauss, A.L. (1987). Qualitative Analysis for Social Scientists. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
  9. Walker, D., Myrick, F. (2006). Grounded Theory: An Exploration of Process and Procedure. Qualitative Health Research, April 2006, 16 (4), (pp. 547-559).
  10. Walsh, M. (2003). Teaching Qualitative Analysis Using QSR NVivo. The Qualitative Report. 02 June 2003, 8 (2), (pp. 251256).

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

Suggest Corrections to References