Developing an e-portfolio for the Consolidation Module (PQ) Jane Lindsay & Dionne Collins

1. Developing an e-portfolio for the Consolidation Module (PQ) Jane Lindsay & Dionne Collins Kingston University & Skills for Care London (NW & SW)

2. Outline • Background and rationale • 2. Development of the project in partnership • 3. Evaluation of outcomes

3. Background and rationale • Skills for Care Innovation Fund grant to School of Social Work, Kingston University and partners from SW and NW London Skills For Care sub region • E portfolio for all pathways at consolidation level & explore potential for full Specialist level • London wide approach to PQ consolidation agreed in 2007 • Timing and workforce needs

4. Why an e portfolio? Literature review (Butler, 2006) highlights advantages such as • promoting skill development, • facilitating the exchange of ideas and feedback, • encouraging reflective practice • engaging students in evaluation and assessment processes • enabling the inclusion of artefacts (such as records of achievement, or post –registration teaching and learning records for the GSCC, service user feedback), • psychological advantages of fostering students’ pride in their work and sense of accomplishment

5. Why an e portfolio? • Easier to maintain, more portable, easier to access and store • Promotes standardisation. • Those who use assistive technology may also find electronic portfolios easier to utilise that standard paper based portfolios, thus promoting greater equality of opportunity

6. Challenges for e portfolios • Authentication and verification of students’ work • The need, initially, to motivate and promote student, mentor and employer engagement with the process. • Design features need to be considered carefully to ensure functionality.

7. Planning considerations • Ensuring that all stakeholders are involved in the design process • Developing ways to “balance standardisation with the ability for a system to be flexible enough to respond to student need and to protect the privacy of those contributing to portfolios” (Butler, 2006 p.15) • Supporting those who may need assistance in accessing e-technology, either personally or structurally.

8. Development of project in partnership • Steering group – agencies, Kingston University Service Users and Carers Steering group representatives, academic staff and mentors • Commissioned a company from the Midlands who had worked on e portfolios for a qualifying programme (SfC funded) to develop the e portfolio • Web-based, accessible by students, mentors, managers, markers, PAP and Externals

17. Mentors, Markers, Practice Assessment Panel, & External Examiner’s view

18. Credit Crunch • Difficulties in contacting the software developer from half-way through the project • Steering group members were able to resolve issues by working closely with students and mentors • Eventually learned that the software developer had gone into administration

19. Pilot Process • 10 students enrolled on the e portfolio pilot (6 child and family, 4 adults pathway) • Mentors, managers and students trained to use e portfolio Sept 08. • Students attended taught sessions and were mentored electronically • 9 completed, one transferred to standard route • Practice Assessment Panel January 2009 • External examiners trained and assessed • 8 students passed and one failed and was offered a resubmission opportunity

20. Evaluation • Questionnaires to mentors, managers and students • Interviews with mentors • Feedback sought from steering group, PAP and external examiners

21. Mentors’ views Liked • “The communication facility enabled motivating comments to be made to the student as they completed /uploaded work”. • “The feature which showed the progress of students and which elements of the portfolio were completed”

22. Mentors’ issues “Having to go into each document separately when marking was time consuming” “Students still sent me work to look at via email as they seemed reluctant to upload documents which they had not finalised. I felt I was running two systems” “ Marking took a lot longer on line. In theory the marking of one portfolio could not be done at one sitting as it takes much longer than 45 minutes to mark especially if the candidate is weak and may fail”

23. Mentors’ issues • ““I found marking the e portfolio very hard on the eyes and time consuming” • “Marking on line is a great strain on the eyes, caused headaches and seemed to take much longer” • “Initially I was quite enthusiastic about the e portfolio. In reality I feel it may be easier for some but not all candidates and puts more pressure on assessors”

24. Students’ views “It was easy to submit” “I thought it was good visually – I particularly liked the pie chart and found the whole site generally quite straightforward once I had got used to it.” “The e-portfolio route is handy as you can log on anywhere “

25. Students’ issues  “When I went to submit the portfolio there appeared to be an error. The page told me ‘You are now ready to submit…’. I clicked on the submit icon, the computer seemed to do something; the screen flickered then came back up with the same screen as before clicking to submit. Once again it said ‘You are now ready to submit’. I was expecting a new page saying ‘Portfolio Submitted’. I was anxious that it hadn’t worked so I had to take time to email my mentor to ask her to check, and then wait for a reply” • “My manager had some problems receiving the comments I posted on the site”.

26. External Examiners • it was good to have all work submitted by candidates available for examination • the process of opening files and examining them in each section of the e portfolio was cumbersome.

27. Future options No immediate plans for further development on this platform (software developer issues) – a disappointment E portfolios could have potential and should be tailor made Standardised assessment? Link to NQSW?

28. References and Contact Details • Butler, P (2006) A review of the literature on portfolios and electronic portfolios. https://eduforge.org/docman/view.php/176/1111/ePortfolio%20Project%20Research%20Report.pdf Accessed 10/6/09  • GSCC (2005) Post Qualifying Framework For Social Work Education And Training London. GSCC Contact: J.F.Lindsay@Kingston.ac.uk