This paper examines the first steps of the implementation of an ePortfolio 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 tried to answer the following 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 variables that influence student learning and their pedagogy when using an ePortfolio? A focus group was conducted with French Québécois teachers. The preliminary results show that the ePortfolio software was a good experience for one of the teachers, but two teachers faced more important issues during the implementation phase.

1. Teachers reflecting about the implementation
of an ePortfolio to encourage student self-
regulation
Ann-Louise Davidson Ph.D.
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

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

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

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

7. 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?

8. Other elements of a review of literature
Portfolios
Self-regulation (Zimmerman)
Motivation (Deci Ryan)
Self-efficacy (Bandura)

9. Research question
Can the use of ePEARL engage teachers in a reflection about their
pedagogical practices and their perception of student learning?
Can this reflective process help inform teacher education
programs?
*

10. Recruitment
Done through RÉCIT
Five teachers responded
Three agreed to participate
Design
One-on-one interviews
Training session
Focus group at the end of
the year

11. 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

12. Reflections on usefulness of
training
The elementary school teacher received the training alone.
She appeared to be intimidated by the technology.
She called the researcher several times as she started using ePearl
She received the local RÉCIT’s assistance when 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.
They didn’t ask for help.
Ideally, training should coincide with the beginning of a project.
*

13. Focus group questions
What are the pedagogical activities you did 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?
*

14. Focus-groups results

16. 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
~ +

17. 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
*

18. Original construct analysis divided by teacher

19. Teacher 1

20. Teacher 2

21. Teacher 3

22. Next steps
For teachers:
Teacher 1: Involve parents more and use more advanced feedback
functions
Teacher 2: 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.

23. Conclusion
Directions for future research and practice
Systemic analysis of classroom dynamic with technology is
highly desired
Teacher training programs should focus on developing
categories of competencies in new teachers, rather than teach
them specific applications and programs, in order to foster
technological autonomy.
Limits
Number of participants (3)
One single school board
Transferability
Generalizability

24. Thank you!

25. •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

26. 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

27. 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