RAPPORT
Volume 3 Issue 1 (2018)
each component at the start of the
semester. It was intended to provide
group feedback in class on the weekly
assignments to students, as well as
individual feedback on at least one
assignment. The summative assessment,
comprising the full journal collection, was
to be submitted in Week 10 and was
assigned 50% of the overall grade.
5. Rubrics/Marking Scheme
The marking scheme was kept simple,
with 25% allocated to each of four areas
to encourage students to concentrate on
these:
1. how well it fulfilled the assignment
brief;
2. extent of creativity in presentation
and layout, including quality of
writing;
3. quality and extent of independent
research supporting
analyses/reflections and supporting
references; and
4. depth of analyses and reflections
referring to creative tools and
course concepts and/or evidence
from academic research.
Step 3: Act
The planned steps were carried out, and
largely went to plan, although some
iterative adjustments were required. The
following aspects emerged as the main
pain points, indicating that a degree of
flexibility needs to be factored in when
introducing e-portfolio assessments:
Delays in activating Loop Reflect
Lisa Donaldson came into the class in the
second week to go through the e-portfolio
and templates. It was important for all
students to have activated the link to their
Loop Reflect e-portfolios, and once all
students were activated Lisa could set up
the course link templates and ongoing
supports. However, not all students were
registered by this date, mainly due to late
registrations, and Lisa had to go through
them in class another day.
Feedback
The first assignment submission went well
with 82 students submitting via Loop
Reflect by the deadline. Some students
had difficulties with submissions but
following supports in-class, by email, and
from Lisa this rose to 94 (out of 98).
These were quickly reviewed by Michele,
and if submitted in the correct format and
largely completed, 100% was input into the
grade. If the format was incorrect then
students were awarded 50% to indicate
they had an issue to resolve, and this was
indicated in the on-line feedback in Loop
Reflect. Where students had submitted a
blank or largely incomplete exercise they
were award either 0 or 25%, and the
reason for this was indicated in the
feedback. By the third assignment these
issues no longer arose.
Each week a random selection of
assignments was reviewed and feedback
provided in class and on-line. However, it
quickly became apparent that students
also needed feedback on how to use some
of the functions of e-portfolios and how to
develop them as reflective journals. To
manage this additional feedback and
learning, together with handling the
technical issues that arose (outlined
below), it was agreed with students that
the course schedule would be adapted to
cater for this.
Technical issues and extension of
submission deadlines
Some technical problems with
submissions emerged when students were
submitting their reflective journal page for
54