This communication discusses the implementation of an ePortfolio designed to encourage self-regulation in learners. First, it presents the Québec political context from which the necessity of providing students with a competency based education arises. Second, a brief literature review provides some arguments about the development of technological competencies in learners and teachers and about the orientation that pedagogy can take. This study strived to answer two research questions: 1) After using an ePortfolio during a school year, what are the pedagogical activities that teachers identify as being valuable to conduct with students? 2) What are the teachers’ perceptions of the influence of an ePortfolio on student learning and on their pedagogical approaches? We conducted interviews and a focus group with French Québécois teachers. The results of this grounded theory show that the ePortfolio implementation was a good experience for some teachers, but other teachers faced more important issues during the implementation phase.

1. Reflecting on pedagogical practices with
electronic portfolios.
Ann-Louise Davidson
Nadia Naffi
Concordia University

2. Research context
Adoption of Internet technology in society
New knowledge economy -> new logic of education?
Competency based education
Québec context: le renouveau pédagogigue
Evolution of pedagogical approaches
Paradigm of the reflective practitioner (Shön)

3. Review of literature
Pedagogy: Empirical studies and theoretical research based on empirical studies
Reganick (1994); Bélair (1995); Gayet (1995); Gauthier (1997); Laplante (1997); Basque, Rocheleau et Winer (1998); Trigwell, Prosser
et Waterhouse (1999); Crawford (1999); D’eon, Overgaard et Rutledge (2000); Kember et Kwan (2000); Keyser (2000); Carpenter et
Tait (2001); Woods (2001); Yang (2001); Durand et Morin (2002); Gardye, Favreau et Malo (2002); Hébert, Barbeau et Dupuis (2002);
Kim et Branch (2002); Landry (2002); Perrenoud (2002); Ghaith, (2003); Hewett (2003); Kulinna et Cothran. (2003); Martel (2003);
Roberts (2003); Conole, Dyke, Oliver et Seale. (2004); Gore, Griffiths et Ladwig. (2004); Trigwell et Prosser (2004, 2006); Lindblom-
Ylänne, Trigwell, Nevgi, & Ashwin (2006).
Typologies centered around the act of teaching and learning
Dans les typologies centrées sur l’acte d’enseignement/apprentissage, certaines typologies sont
classées selon le rôle joué par l’ordinateur au sein de la relation pédagogique (Bork, 1985; Jonassen,
1995; Means, 1994; Sauvé, 1984; Taylor, 1980), selon le degré d’autonomie de l’apprenant (Plante,
1984), selon le type de stratégies pédagogiques ou de connaissances visées (Baumgartner & Payr,
1998; de Vries, 2001; Denis, 2003; Paquette, 1993; Séguin, 1997) et selon les étapes du processus
d’enseignement (Alessi & Trollip, 1991).
Typologies centered on schools
Dans les typologies centrées sur l’école, certaines
typologies sont classées selon les types d’activités
d’une école (Aylwin, 1984; Basque et al., 1998;
Knezek, Rachlin & Scannell, 1988; Schultz & Hart,
1983; Roecks, 1981; Watts, 1981), et une selon les
acteurs d’une école (Dubuc, 1982).
Typologies centered on the learner
Dans les typologies centrées sur l’apprenant, une typologie
est classée selon les impulsions de l’individu à apprendre
(Bruce & Levin, 1997), d’autres sont classées selon les
fonctions cognitives que l’ordinateur permet d’étendre
ou de restructurer (Chacon, 1992; Jonassen, 1996) et selon
les étapes du processus d’apprentissage ou de
traitement de l’information (Thomas & Boyson, 1984; Iioshi
& Hannafin, 1988).

4. Other sections of the literature review
E-Portfolios
Self-regulation (Zimmerman)
Motivation (Deci Ryan)
Self-efficacy (Bandura)

5. Research question
How can the use of an electronic portfolio engage teachers in a
reflection about their pedagogical practices and their perception of
student learning?
Can this reflective process help inform teacher education
programs?
*

7. Recruitment
Done through RÉCIT
Five teachers responded
Three participated for the
whole year.
Design
One-on-one interviews
Training session
Focus group at the end of
the year

8. Interview results
Teacher 1
(elementary female)
Teacher 2
(secondary male)
Teacher 3
(secondary female)
Teaching
Socio-constructivist
project based
learning
Transmission of
knowledge (guide)
Structured
mastery learning
Technology Personal use mostly Non user Proficient

9. Reflections on usefulness of
training
The elementary school teacher received the training alone.
Intimidated by the technology.
Frequently called the researcher as she started using ePearl
Received the local RÉCIT’s assistance while she implemented the project.
The secondary school teachers received the training together.
One was very critical of the interface and wanted to find the flaws before she
started using it.
The other expected ePearl to be a portal.
Didn’t ask for help.
*Ideally, training should coincide with the beginning of a project.
*

10. Focus group questions
What pedagogical activities did you do with ePearl this year?
How frequently did you do these activities?
How difficult/easy were these activities?
Do you think they had an impact on learning?
Do you think they had an impact on your pedagogical approach?
*

11. Focus-groups results

13. Discovery activity
Activity frequency
0 1 2 10
How did the students use PERLE?
Demonstration to other children
Parent access
Project
Knowledge of other programs _
_
_
_
~Grammar correction
Teacher1
_
Objectives
Guiding questions
Help
Readers’ journal
Forgot
~
+
+
+
Teacher3
_
_
(Planning) Doing (Reflecting)
Journal
Search
~
+
Teacher2
Level of difficulty for students
Impact on the learning level
_
Impact on the pedagogical method
~ +

14. Original construct analysis divided by teacher

15. Teacher 1
What is the focus of this slide?

16. Teacher 2
What is the focus of this slide?

17. Teacher 3
What is the focus of this slide?

18. Next steps
For teachers:
Teacher 1: Wants to involve parents more and use more advanced
feedback functions
Teacher 2: Needs to formulate objectives and guiding questions
for and with learners
Teacher 3: Needs to figure out how to make students more
autonomous and start formulating objectives.

19. Conclusion
Directions for future research and practice
Systemic analysis of classroom dynamic with technology is
highly desired
Teacher education programs should focus on developing generic
technological competencies
Teachers need accompaniment to teach through self-regulation
processes
Limits
Number of participants
One single school board
Transferability
Generalizability

20. Thank you!

21. •Beaucoup d’impact sur l’approche pédagogique
•Peu d’impact sur l’apprentissage
•Très difficile
•Correction grammaire
•Fréquemment
•Rarement
•Projets
•Accès parental
•Démonstration à d’autres enfants
•Connaissance de nouveaux logiciels
20%
80%
•Beaucoup d’impact sur l’apprentissage
•Peu d’impact sur l’approche pédagogique
•Facile
Enseignant 1

22. 40%
40%
Enseignant 2
•Beaucoup d’impact sur l’apprentissage
•Fréquemment
•Rarement
•Peu d’impact sur l’approche pédagogique
•Peu d’impact sur l’apprentissage
•Objectifs
•Journal de lecture
•Oublier
•Beaucoup d’impact sur l’approche pédagogique
•Questions guide
•Aide

23. 20%
80%
Enseignant 3
•Beaucoup d’impact sur l’apprentissage
•Fréquemment
•Peu d’impact sur l’approche pédagogique
•Peu d’impact sur l’apprentissage
•Découverte guidée
•Journal
•Réflections, planifications
•Rarement
•Beaucoup d’impact sur l’approche pédagogique
•Recherche

26. Framework
Social
System
Educational
System
Representations of
the use of ICT
Représentations
of Pedagogy
Relationships?
Group
Individual

27. Framework
Technical Social
Epistemological
Informational
Social
System
Educational
System
Teacher
Centered
Learner
Centered
Process Oriented
Product Oriented

28. Ann-Louise Davidson Ph.D.
Teacher
Centered
Learner
Centered
Process Oriented
Product Oriented
Social
Epistemological
Technical
Informational

29. Representations
of the object
Categorisation
of the object
Discrimination
of object
properties
Selection
of properties
ChoiceHarmonization
of properties
Choice
Which use of
technology?
For which technological
interaction?
Which pedagogical
approach?
For which pedagogical
objective?

30. In sum...One participant was very satisfied
Two participants were frustrated and felt powerless...
Assistance given to teachers
Class size
Work habits
Individual differences
Student autonomy
Students’ prior knowledge
Students’ motivation
Students’ collaboration
Proper scheduling of the activities
Frequency of meeting
Coaching, teachers’ technical skills
School facilities
Technical constraints
School culture
Parents’ role
*