CALL Newsletter - July 2014 (Plain Text Version)
|
||
|
In this issue: |
REPORT ON THE CALL-IS LISTSERV DISCUSSION "USING E-PORTFOLIOS TO GUIDE AND ASSESS ESL LEARNING OUTCOMES"
I first want to express my appreciation to the CALL-IS community for such spirited and international contributions to our Listserv discussion: “Using E-Portfolios to Guide and Assess ESL Learning Outcomes.” I also want to thank Suzan Stamper for inspiring our community discourse and Larry Udry for allowing the fruits of the experience to be included in this month’s newsletter. Pondering CALL's mission to explore the intersection of technology and language learning, I invited CALL-IS to discuss e-portfolios for the ESL skill sets. E-portfolios encourage students to take charge of course goals and cultivate reflective learning habits which serve them in and beyond academies. With benefits in mind, I posed the following question to the Listserv community. As e-portfolio practices emerge in CALL and TESOL, how have instructors adapted e-portfolios to their classrooms? Keeping in mind the infancy of e-portfolios in ESL classrooms, I also encouraged the Listserv community to reflect on challenges. Despite benefits, e-portfolios are not ubiquitous. What obstacles and/or apprehensions have instructors encountered in implementing e-portfolios? These questions approached only the surface-level issues with hopes that a discussion would evolve to reflect the specific interests of CALL-IS; sharing experiences and positing further questions was encouraged with hopes that the nuances of our community might shape the discourse. Our discussion was quite extended, but I’ll begin with the topic of technology literacy discussed by Debbie, Beth, and Brian. First, we have all witnessed Debbie and Brian’s predicament: student apprehension toward technology. This can be a serious obstacle to learning; affective filters are often raised in high-stress environments, preventing learning. This is why I was so moved by Beth’s suggestion that technology literacy be an ongoing project of ESL courses; essentially, we scaffold language skills, so we also should scaffold other types of knowledge, technology literacy included. Starting basic may be the key to overcoming student apprehensions. For my classes, I devote an entire day (usually in the first week of classes) to the technology literacy requirements of the semester. Simply demonstrating the demands of technology in the classroom isn't enough, though, and can be futile. Instead, students should be interacting with technology when it’s introduced; that way, specific obstacles (often individual to students) can be overcome. Students have thanked me for making this a hands-on course goal, reflecting that “We didn't know what our problems were until we tried for ourselves.” Requiring students to interact with technology relieves this apprehension, which finds its source in unfamiliarity. This solution, of course, implies a class set of computers and face-to-face interaction, resources which aren't always available. In contrast, we should also consider the emerging student population for whom technology literacy is often advanced. Indeed, some students are apprehensive about traditional paper-and-pencil methods of assessment and avoid this medium at all costs. To them, organizing and carrying loads of paper is illogical, in place of the digital, lightweight alternative. Still others argue that their writing processes are hindered by traditional methods, as invention through digital mediums is more familiar and liberating. Thus, as new types of literacy emerge, to recognize the importance of multiliteracies is crucial; we must guide students beyond apprehensions toward unfamiliar mediums of communication, no matter which end of the technological spectrum they emerge from. Second, the correspondences among Chris, Debbie, and Nina invite follow-up discussion on sharing and archiving e-portfolios. Indeed, many portfolio-based assessment programs demand student portfolios be archived for accreditation or recommendation purposes. I was struck by Nina’s experience that her institution is hesitant about switching to e-portfolios for reasons of archiving. As Debbie mentioned, e-portfolios are more easily managed than paper portfolios and by extension more easily archived. The latter demands large filing cabinets, while the former could be stored to an external hard drive or the cloud. Thus, while the concern for student deletion of public portfolios is valid for archiving purposes, e-portfolios can be archived by other means beyond public websites. Perhaps the apprehension expressed by Nina’s institution may also be a result of what Chris reminded us: Software and technology change too quickly for long-term reliability. Yet certain software programs (e.g., Publisher, Word, Adobe) are ubiquitous to institutions, and I hope we can rely on the longevity of these common programs for archiving. Also, Google Drive allows for PDF and .docx conversion, file formats which, arguably, will be available a decade from now; I still see .doc files from 1997 functioning perfectly. The concern remains, though, that some of the more obscure (and fun for experimentation) e-portfolio resources contain within them the risk of becoming obsolete. In reflection, the concern of resource longevity seems to pervade many (if not all) aspects of CALL. With the evolution of technology, our pedagogy and resources, too, must follow this evolution, e-portfolios included. Finally, the contributions of Nina and Brian explored a second phase of this discussion: e-portfolio content across the skill sets. Nina mentioned diverse writing samples: timed writing, process writing, and reflective writing. Brian’s students share final drafts in their portfolios. These e-portfolio content examples serve important purposes and each has its place in writing classrooms. Yet to consider our immediate association of e-portfolios within writing frameworks seems to reveal an underdeveloped niche of CALL. Indeed, while the literature on e-portfolios for student writing continues to develop, reports on e-portfolios within the other skill sets are less available. Nina was first to forge new ground with her platform suggestions for speaking e-portfolios to include PodOmatic and Chirbit—free podcast sites—which allow students to archive speeches. Nina’s suggestions further enriched our discussion on content for reading e-portfolios to include book summaries and responses, to which I suggested the inclusion of sections for vocabulary development and a log of reading speed evolution. Furthermore, Sandy suggested students document listening comprehension through reactionary e-portfolio artifacts which may include PowerPoint or creating infographics through piktochart.com. As Sandy concluded, the key to integrating e-portfolios in skill sets beyond writing may be found in skills integration; artifact suggestions for portfolios in other skill sets, too, may involve writing. Despite this, the e-portfolio may still invite students to create products that demonstrate targeted learning outcomes of diverse skills with writing as the medium of communication. And I couldn’t agree more; writing to learn is among my favorite practices for both pedagogical and personal endeavors. Thanks again, everyone, for such committed responses and interaction. I hope our discussion of e-portfolios might continue, despite the completion of the formal Listserv discussion. Please excuse me if I glossed over some important information from our correspondences; the complete CALL-IS discussion on e-portfolios to include all contributions may be found here. I look forward to engaging with our community in this discussion; feel free to ask further questions for development!
Kole Matheson teaches ESL and composition classes at Old Dominion University and Tidewater Community College, in Hampton Roads, Virginia. He has a master's degree in applied linguistics with a TESOL emphasis from Old Dominion University, where he also works as a co-investigator for the university’s e-portfolio pilot program. |
|