Reflective Journal 1



Reflective Journal 1

Introduction

Since Portfolios, in general, were developed to support the learning and teaching process and have been used for a long time, there are numerous definitions of student learning portfolios proposed by educators. The literature reveals a dozen possible definitions of the portfolio term; however, there are three that in our opinion illustrate themost important different aspects of the term. A comprehensive definitionwas offered by Tanis (2000),who described Portfolios as ameaningful collection of studentwork thatdemonstrates progress and/or mastery guided by standards and includes evidence of student self-reflection. Marcoul (2006) defined Portfolios as a collection of student achievement artifacts createdduring a periodof time that serve asauthentic assessment tools usedto evaluate student learning. Finally, Rodríguez (2009) defined Portfolios as a purposeful collection of student's work that illustrates efforts, progress and achievement (Loehlin 2004).

All these definitions describe Portfolio as a concept or a set of procedures and data that result in the demonstration of a student's capabilities. However, the full educational potential of Portfolios is obtained when the procedures and data identified in the aforementioned definitions are implemented as an information system. The current trend is moving toward implementing Portfolio initiatives as information systems that are supported by current information and communication technology (ICT) and in particular web-based technology. For this reason, this research refers exclusively to Web-based Portfolios. In order to differentiate a paper Portfolio from its electronic counterpart, the letter 'e' will be added to the word 'Portfolio'. Therefore, the term administration portfolio will be used hereafter to denote the most popular type of electronic Portfolio, i.e. the Web-based Portfolio being used currently(Lin 2007).

Need for the online administrator

Based on a review of the extant literature, administration portfolio implementations must take into account three different stakeholders: individuals (students and teachers); institutions; and employers. A study of administration portfolios from all different perspectives is beyond the scope of a single research study, and therefore this research will focus on the assessment of administration portfolio deployment from the perspective of individual students. The majority of research on administration portfolio focuses on the deployment process within an institution, defining administration portfolio requirements, and case studies of institutions that have implemented administration portfolios at the course level (Lennon 2006). However, . administration portfolio system implementation is in general a comprehensive educational innovation and therefore support has to be provided in both a pedagogical and technical sense (sic(Lawshe 1975). Several attempts have been made to investigate the perceived values of users acceptance, but those studies dealt only with users' attitudes toward use and perceived usefulness (Lawlor 1994).

System Quality: Measures of the Information Processing System Itself

This dimension measures the desirable characteristics of IS. Since this dimension captures the system itself it is oriented toward technical specifications like data processing capabilities, response time, ease of use, system reliability, and sophistication. According to Laudon (2002), the System Quality construct should measure technical success that Shannon and Weaver (1949) defined as the accuracy and efficiency of the communication system that produces ...