April 1998 — Features
Print this article | Email this articleClick here to receive your FREE subscription to T.H.E. Journal
Infusing Technology and Literacy into the Undergraduate
The Peer Review Card. This final card incorporates the reactions of others to the portfolio and contains peer review comments. In groups of 20 the students rotated -- in "round robin" fashion -- through the 20 computers, each loaded with a different portfolio. Students then made comments directly into the portfolio in areas related to the following criteria: stack design and development; ease of operation of links; clip art and background additions; and content-technology connection.
In addition to assessing the portfolio and its components through a peer review, the portfolios were shared in a format known as the Jigsaw approach.[3] Using this format, each group representing a specific chapter in the book regroups in a manner that allows one group from each chapter to form a new, larger group so that the entire book is ultimately discussed and shared. As a result, through the new grouping an electronic work-sampling portfolio from each of the six school districts would be shared with groups of 30 students gathered in regular classrooms. The portfolios were shared via computers and LCD projectors and/or scan converters. Sample portfolio cards can be seen in Figures 1 and 2.
Student Perceptions
Students were formatively and summatively assessed to determine their perceptions of the technology/literacy project. The students' reactions were both informative and insightful. First, when asked in the summative assessment if the assignment engaged all students in social issues related to education, 100% of the students either agreed or strongly agreed. When asked if cooperation and collaboration in a group setting was accomplished, 97% of the students either agreed or strongly agreed. One problem area was with the use of time: 77% of the students either agreed or strongly agreed that they had been given enough time to fully understand and complete the project. Perhaps the three weeks of concentrated experience would have been better spread over the entire semester.
Additionally, only 79% of the students agreed or strongly agreed that this entire activity was relevant and important to their future roles as teachers in any school setting. Perhaps more time should have been spent connecting the reading to our local educational environment. Finally, the technology coordinators were asked to evaluate the technology component of the project. Surprisingly, 92% of the coordinators felt the activity went smoothly and was worthwhile. This was unexpected because some of the coordinators had to wait for free time in the computer lab to complete their groups' portfolios. Apparently this did not adversely affect their opinion of the activity itself.
When asked what value they found in this activity, students' open-ended comments were varied. After data were compiled and analyzed, however, the following four comments were the most prominent. Students felt they learned:
- how to develop an electronic portfolio to display their work, including some elements of design for constructing a portfolio;
- how to share their work with others in a new way;
- how to synthesize information to place in the portfolio; and
- how to work with others in a manner that involved the sharing of resources.
