1 / 9

Experiences using Electronic Portfolios for Learning

Experiences using Electronic Portfolios for Learning. Presented by Faculty and Staff at UMW’s College of Graduate and Professional Studies Lisa Ames, Gail Brooks, Teresa Coffman, Cheryl Hawkinson-Melkun and Sharon Teabo.

finn
Download Presentation

Experiences using Electronic Portfolios for Learning

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Experiences using Electronic Portfolios for Learning Presented by Faculty and Staff at UMW’s College of Graduate and Professional Studies Lisa Ames, Gail Brooks, Teresa Coffman, Cheryl Hawkinson-Melkun and Sharon Teabo

  2. Andragogy“experience is the adult learner's living textbook” (Lindeman, 1926) Who Are They? Lifelong Learners Self-Directed Take Responsibility for Decisions What do they offer? Life Experiences Life/Work/School Learning Connections How do they learn? Self-Reflection Peer Review Small Group Interactions Learner Centered Lessons

  3. Professional OF Learning FOR Learning 2 Target Programs

  4. E-Portfolio Template Undergraduate Adult Degree Completion Program

  5. Undergraduate Degree CompletionE-Portfolio Rubric

  6. Graduate Teacher Education Program

  7. Graduate Teacher Education E-Portfolio Rubric

  8. Template or Self-Design

  9. Lessons Learned and Future Plans • Fall ’05 • Format proved challenging to students • Lack of self-regulatory skills • Difficulty regulating own learning • Technology competency lower than expected • Writing proficiency • 33% below expected level • Spring ’06 • much improved

More Related