e-Portfolios in Nursing Education. Tim Snashall

1. e-Portfolios in Nursing Education. Tim Snashall

2. At a School of Nursing somewhere in the North West -

3. Reflections on the pilot implementation of a proprietary e-Portfolio Management System (EPMS) in a profession which traditionally doesn’t readily embrace the use of information technology

4. Reflecting on • Issues affecting the implementation of the system, its’ utilisation by staff and students and its’ effectiveness in engaging them in Personal Development Planning (PDP): particularly – • processes involved in establishing operational requirements • the implications of the ownership of the portfolio • the effects of the relationships between the portfolio and assessment, verification and monitoring of learning. Other issues identified in a review of the pilot carried out in recent weeks

5. Establishing operational requirements • A NECESSARY AND USEFUL PROCESS • Academics and university technology providers • needed to take account of • the needs of two different schools • two different approaches to PDP • the longer term implications of extending its’ use to other schools • The chosen product (iWebfolio) • appeared user friendly • company offered training and ongoing support

6. Ownership The e-portfolio is owned by the student for pre-registration nursing programmes, it has always been implied that the institution owns the portfolio It appears that the established custom that Personal Tutors and Mentors in practice placements have an automatic right of access to a portfolio is persisting. Observation Inconclusive : students don’t apparently “take” ownership

7. Assessment, verification - - - The portfolio isn’t directly assessed iWebfolio is in fact an “e-Portfolio Management System” (ePMS) which will enable students to create multiple portfolios. An assessment portfolio could be generated if needed Observation Inconclusive : students might engage more if they thought it was assessed Curriculum managers need to recognise the possibilities for assessment

8. - - - and monitoring Personal Tutors are “reviewers” and Mentors could be Observation Personal Tutors haven’t yet recognised the implications of this role Mentors reluctant to engage And are with paper-based PDP

9. Pedagogy • Personal Tutors understanding and motivation for PDP • It was assumed that Personal Tutors were familiar with PDP processes • (Some) Tutors appear to be deterred by issues with technology • The use of multiple portfolios compares with the traditional system in the school of nursing of a singular portfolio and this may be causing confusion. Student’sunderstanding and motivation for PDP Students should be facilitated by Tutors and take motivational cues from them

10. Technology • Although the EPMS requires someInformation Technology (IT) skills they are common transferable skills • Skills and confidence of students • It is tacitly assumed that students do have some IT skills • There is a significant minority that don’t • Don’t appear to be able to transfer • May lack confidence in their skills • A marked lack of basic file management skills • Lack awareness of need for IT skills in the profession • Computer phobic

11. Technology Skills and confidence of Personal Tutors A similar pattern but older age group Observation Only one step ahead of students One step behind? Can’t facilitate

12. Technogogy • “the convergence of technology, pedagogy and content in the transformative use of technology to foster learning." • Idrus 2008 • Arrangements were made for students and tutors to be trained by technology trainers • Trainers had little knowledge about PDP or portfolio processes • Trainers were not aware of the pedagogical needs of students or staff Observation This appears to have exacerbated the mis-perception that difficulties with carrying out the PDP process are due to difficulties with the technology Students cannot see WHY they should be using the software Some expression of the preference to return to paper-based portfolios because the technology is “too hard”

13. Organisational context The institution has to comply with requirements of various external bodiesand has to work in partnership and collaboration with other institutions The Nursing and Midwifery Council (NMC) The North West Region Health Authority Other local universities NHS trusts (clinical placements)

14. Organisational context • External Bodies • compromise with other universities with differing practices • compliance with requirements of the NMC • Observation • A lack of integration of PDP with curriculum requirements exacerbated by this has led to PDP “type” processes being duplicated as part of other (paper-based) processes • This has possibly furthered the isolation of PDP and the e-portfolio from the curriculum • And de-motivated students and tutors from carrying out PDP • (e-portfolio and/or paper-based)

15. Organisational context • NHS Trusts • Separately managed institutions • Relatively underdeveloped IT resources • Lack of IT skills or confidence in nursing staff • Paper based processes • All deter students from engaging with an e-portfolio

16. Possible solutions Staff development : Pedagogy of PDP Technogogical training Consideration of integration of e-portfolio processes with curriculum Management awareness of technogogy “Selling” to partners