JCPSLP Vol 16 no 3 2014_FINAL_WEB

Acknowledgements This project was funded by an Edith Cowan University Teaching and Learning grant. References Australian ePortfolio Project (2009). ePortfolio concepts for academic staff [pamphlet]. Retrieved from http://www. eportfoliopractice.qut.edu.au/docs/AeP_conceptguide_ academic_staff.pdf Bollinger, D., & Shepherd, C. (2010). Student perceptions of ePortfolio integration in online courses. Distance Education , 31 (3), 295–314. Buckley, S., Coleman, J., Davison, I. S., Khan, K., Zamora, J., Malick, S., Morley, D., Pollard, D., Ashcroft, T., Popovic, C., & Sayers, J., (2009). The educational effects of portfolios on undergraduate student learning: A systematic review. Medical Teacher , 31 , 282–298. Chambers, S., & Wickersham, L. (2007). The electronic portfolio journey: A year later. Education , 127 (3), 351-360. Chou, P. & Chen, W. (2008). From portfolio to E-Portfolio: Past, present, and future. In K. McFerrin et al. (Eds.), Proceedings of Society for Information Technology & Teacher Education International Conference (pp. 22–27). Chesapeake, VA: AACE. Devlin-Scherer, R., Martinelli, J., & Sardone, N. (2006). Twisting the kaleidoscope: Making sense of eportfolios. In A. Jafari & C. Kaufman (Eds.), Handbook of research on ePortfolios (pp. 398-409). Hershey, PA: IGI Global. Faulkner, M. Aziz, S., Waye, V., & Smith, E. (2013). Exploring ways that ePortfolios can support the progressive development of graduate qualities and professional competencies. Higher Education Research and Development , 32 (6), 871–887. Gardner, K., & Aleksejuniene, J. (2008). Quantitative and qualitative analysis of student feedback on ePortfolio learning. Journal of Dental Education , 72 (11), 1324–1332. Gordon, J. A., & Campbell, C. M. (2013) The role of ePortfolios in supporting continuing professional development in practice. Medical Teacher , 35 (4), 287–94. Hallam, G., & and Creagh, T. (2010). ePortfolio use by university students in Australia: A review of the Australian ePortfolio Project. Higher Education Research and Development , 29 (2), 179–193. Hrisos, S., Illing, J., & Burford, B. (2008). Portfolio learning for foundation doctors: Early feedback on its use in the clinical workplace. Medical education , 42 (2), 214–223. Jenson, J. D. & Treuer, P. (2014). Defining the E-Portfolio: What it is and why it matters. Change: The Magazine of Higher Learning , 46:2, 50–57. Klenowski, V., Askew, S., & Carnell, E. (2006). Portfolios for learning, assessment and professional development in higher education. Assessment and Evaluation in Higher Education , 31 (3), 267-286. Leeson, J. & Williams, A. (2009). e-Portfolios beyond education and training [report]. Dulwich, Australia: Education.au Limited. McAllister, S., Lincoln, M., Ferguson, A. & McAllister, L. (2013). COMPASS®: Competency assessment in speech pathology assessment resource manual (2nd ed.). Melbourne: Speech Pathology Australia.

Limitations There are several limitations to the study. First, it is important to note that students could choose to complete the questionnaire so the sample may be biased by students with strong opinions. Second, respondent numbers were small and the response rate was less than 50%. Third, the teaching staff was learning the platform at the same time as teaching the students, thus impacting the effectiveness of the training particularly for the third and fourth years. Finally, the students’ difficulties with the software platform may have affected their other responses. Implications The following recommendations are made, based on the literature and on SP students’ rating of the statements and their free text answers: • The software platform chosen is crucial. It needs to be (a) appropriate for the task requirements; (b) easy to use and navigate; (c) able to share with external people (such as employers); and (d) accessible when the student leaves the university. • The learning tasks need to be meaningful with a clear purpose and expectations to ensure students see the ePortfolio as a learning tool. • The complexity and workload of tasks needs to scaffolded through the course. • Students may benefit from specific skills teaching (e.g., reflection). • Students require training that is clear, concise, and ongoing to ensure the technology is not a barrier to learning. • The link between the student use of an ePortfolio and future goals as a speech pathologist needs to be made explicit often (e.g., with examples and reports from graduates). As a result of this study, a new software platform will be piloted with a more scaffolded implementation of the ePortfolio and a stronger link with future employment. Further research into the perceptions of speech pathologists using an ePortfolio for documenting evidence for Certified Practicing Speech Pathology status would also be useful. Conclusion This study is the first to investigate speech pathology students’ perspectives of an ePortfolio embedded across a SP course. Students generally engaged with the ePortfolio and saw the value as an organisational tool, and to analyse skills and set goals, but found the technology difficult and the ePortfolio tasks unduly time-consuming. They did not see the link with their future career as a speech pathologist, perhaps due to the limitations of the software platform chosen. Despite the limitations of the study, some useful strategies have been suggested to enable the ePortfolio’s value as a learning tool to be fully realised to increase the positive perceptions for future use of ePortfolios in SP courses. As a learning tool an ePortfolio may also be of use for documenting evidence of ongoing learning as required for professional self-regulation.

144

JCPSLP Volume 16, Number 3 2014

Journal of Clinical Practice in Speech-Language Pathology