RAPPORT
Volume 3 Issue 1 (2018)
the second assignment, which took some
time to rectify, the consequence of which
was that deadlines had to be extended
and allowances made for students who
had difficulty in submitting.
This turned out to be mainly due to an
intermittent timing issue with submissions,
but lack of familiarity of users with
technical aspects of the system was
another factor. This caused frustration for
students and many emails to Michele and
Lisa. Submissions of journal pages using
secret URLs, extended deadlines, and an
amnesty for late submissions due to
issues outside the control of students
addressed students’ frustration and
anxiety. An adverse result was delays in
getting feedback to students, and as a
result, the deadline for the final reflective
learning journal collection (summative
assessment) was extended by two weeks.
Step 4: Evaluate (1) Evaluating the e-
portfolio as an appropriate Assessment
OF Learning
The first research sub-objective was to
explore and establish whether e-portfolios
are an appropriate assessment tool for
students to complete experiential and
reflective exercises and assignments. To
ascertain whether the e-portfolio
assessment outcomes didn’t disadvantage
students we needed to compare aggregate
grade outcomes with prior grade outcomes
on the same module. To assess e-
portfolios as a mode for assessment OF
learning the grades for this cohort should
broadly compare favourably with grades
within the same module over previous
years (2011 – 2018), and with final grades
on the module last year (2017) where the
same reflective journal exercises were
used [Table 2].
2017 and 2018 grades compared
The median grade for students in 2018
was 65.5% which was close to the
previous year’s median of 64.25%. Failure
rates were slightly higher in 2018 at 2
(2.04%) in 2018 compared to 1 (0.91%) in
2017. In 2018, a total of three students
(out of 98) failed to submit the final e-
portfolio collection which accounted for
50% of the assessment. Although there
was no reason given for non-submission, it
may be an indication of some difficulty
students had with completing the e-
portfolios, which needs to be considered
and explored further.
Excluding students who failed the module
in both years, the minimum grade was the
same as the previous year’s minimum
grade. However, the maximum grade was
11% higher this year (2018) than the
previous year (2017), and the standard
deviation was also greater at 11% in 2018
compared to 7% the previous year,
indicating the range of grades was broader
in 2018. At the lower end of the grade
range it appears that students were not
adversely impacted by doing assessment
through Loop Reflect and e-portfolios,
while at the upper end they excelled.
However, this represents a comparison
over only two years, with different
lecturers, graders, students, and formative
assessments potentially affecting grade
outcomes. At a minimum, it appears that,
in aggregate, the 2018 cohort of students
performed no worse than the previous
years’ cohort, with some students
performing better.
Results compared to previous years
When comparing results for 2018 following
the introduction of e-portfolios as a method
of assessment, the minimum grade (48%)
is in the mid-range of minimum grades for
each year since 2011 (41-58%); and the
55