Organizational schemata of e-portfolios for fostering higher-order thinking
- 427 Downloads
The information technology of online e-portfolio systems have been widely used during the past several years along with the diffusion of electronic teaching-learning systems. However, for the time being e-portfolio is viewed more as an assessment tool or a showcase tool, but less as an active learning tool. The current generic e-portfolio systems store artifacts in the chronological order on the course basis, providing few facets for active thinking. The question of how we can make e-portfolio a useful learning tool to improve students’ learning outcomes is still open to research. Among various students’ learning outcomes, higher-order thinking has become an important outcome of education. One vision of education evolution is to change the modes of thinking of students. This study is to meet the challenge of e-portfolios by investigating a significant research question: how e-portfolios can be used as a learning tool for students to foster higher-order thinking. Specifically, this study proposes an ontological approach to organizational schema of e-portfolios so that e-portfolios can be logically and dynamically organized into thinking-driven networks. The ontological schemata can serve as visible maps for the virtual e-portfolios repository shared by all teachers and students to foster higher-order thinking. A case study that implements a prototype of organizational schemata of e-portfolios demonstrates the usefulness of the proposed approach for fostering higher-order thinking.
KeywordsSemantic Web System analysis and design User-computer interface Object-oriented E-portfolio Higher-order thinking Ontology E-learning Learning objects Business education Information systems education
The comments of two anonymous reviewers have contributed significantly to the revision of this paper.
- AACSB. (2003). Eligibility procedures and standards for business accreditation, Association to Advance Collegiate Schools of Business (AACSB) International, [Retrieved March 14, 2010 from http://www.aacsb.org].
- Annis (Ferrill), L., & Jones, C. (1995). Student portfolios: Their objectives, development, and use. In P. Seldin & Associates (Eds.), Improving college teaching (pp. 181–190). Boston: Anker.Google Scholar
- Argyris, C., & Schon, D. A. (1988). Organizational learning. In D. S. Pugh (Ed.), Organization theory selected readings (pp. 352–370). New York: Penguin.Google Scholar
- Barrett, H. C. (1994). Technology-supported assessment portfolios. The Computing Teacher, 21, 9–12.Google Scholar
- Batterbee, L., & Dunham, A. (2004). Four years of reflection: The digital portfolio project at Albion College. In J. Zubizarreta (Ed.), The learning portfolio: Reflective practice for improving student learning (pp. 59–63). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.Google Scholar
- Bloom, B. S. (Ed.). (1956). Taxonomy of educational objectives: The classification of educational goals, Handbook I: Cognitive domain. Green: Longmans.Google Scholar
- Boland, R. J., & Collopy, F. (Eds.). (2004). Managing as designing. Stanford: Stanford University Press.Google Scholar
- Bruder, I. (1993). Alternative assessment: Putting technology to the test. Electronic Learning, 12, 12–28.Google Scholar
- Bushweller, K. (1995). The high-tech portfolio. The Executive Educator, 17, 19–22.Google Scholar
- Cohen, E., & Nycz, M. (2006). Learning objects e-learning: An informing science perspective. Interdisciplinary Journal of Knowledge and Learning Objects, 2, 23–24.Google Scholar
- Collis, B., & Strijker, A. (2003). Re-usable learning objects in context. International Journal on E-Learning, 2(4), 5–16.Google Scholar
- CW (2010). Chalk & Wire, [Retrieved March 14, 2010 from http://www.chalkandwire.com/eportfolio].
- DC (2010). Dublin core metadata initiative, [Retrieved March 14, 2010 from http://dublincore.org].
- Devedzic, V. (2004). Education and the semantic web. International Journal of Artificial Intelligence in Education, 14, 39–65.Google Scholar
- Drier, H. N. (1997). Career portfolios — don’t leave home without one. Career Planning & Adult Development Journal, 12(4), 55–60.Google Scholar
- Eliot, J. (1987). Models of psychological space: Psychometric, developmental, and experimental approaches. New York: Springer-Verlag.Google Scholar
- Ericsson, K. A., & Smith, J. (1991). Toward a general theory of expertise: Prospects and limits. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
- Eysenck, M. W. (1993). Principles of cognitive psychology. Hillsdale: Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar
- foliotek (2010). foliotek e-portfolio system, [Retrieved March 5, 2010 from http://www.foliotek.com/].
- Greenberg, G. (2004). The digital convergence: Extending the portfolio. Educause Review, 39(4), 28–36.Google Scholar
- Gregor, S. (2006). The nature of theory in information systems. MIS Quarterly, 30(3), 611–635.Google Scholar
- Harman, K., & Koohang, A. (2005). Discussion board: A learning object. Interdisciplinary Journal of Knowledge and Learning Objects, 1, 67–77.Google Scholar
- Hevner, A. R., March, S. T., Park, J., & Ram, S. (2004). Design science in information system research. MIS Quarterly, 28(1), 75–105.Google Scholar
- IEEE LTSC (2010). IEEE learning technology standards committee. [Retrieved March 15, 2010 from http://ieeeltsc.org].
- IMS (2006). IMS Meta-data Best Practice Guide for IEE 1484.12.1-2002 Standard for Learning Object Metadata Version 1.3 Final Specification. [Retrieved March 13, 2010, from http://www.imsproject.org/metadata/].
- Jones, D., & Gregor, S. (2007). The anatomy of a design theory. Journal of the Association for Information Systems, 8(5), 312–335.Google Scholar
- KEEP (2010). KEEP toolkit, [Retrieved March 15, 2010 from http://www.cfkeep.org/static/index.html].
- Kida, T. (2006). Don’t believe everything you think: The 6 basic mistakes we make in thinking. Amherst: Prometheus Books.Google Scholar
- Kim, D. H. (1993). The link between individual and organizational learning. Sloan Management Review, 35(1), 37–50.Google Scholar
- Koohang, A. (2004). Creating learning objects in collaborative e-learning settings. Issues in Information Systems, 4(2), 584–590.Google Scholar
- Kurfiss, J. G. (1988). Critical thinking: Theory, research, practice, and possibilities. ASHE-ERIC Higher Education Report No.2, ASHE, Washington, DC.Google Scholar
- Lumsden, J. A., Garis, J. W., Reardon, R. C., Unger, M. P., & Arkin, S. (2001). A blueprint for building an online career portfolio. Journal of Career Planning and Employment, 62(1), 33–38.Google Scholar
- McCowan, C., Harper, W., & Hauville, K. (2005). Student e-portfolio: The successful implementation of an e-portfolio across a major Australian university. Australian Journal of Career Development, 14(2), 40–52.Google Scholar
- Mustaro, P. N., & Silveira, I. F. (2006). Learning objects: Adaptive retrieval through learning styles. Interdisciplinary Journal of Knowledge and Learning Objects, 2, 35–46.Google Scholar
- Myers, I. B. (1962). Introduction to type: A description of the theory and applications of the Myers-Briggs type indicator. Palo Alto: Consulting Psychologists Press.Google Scholar
- Namuth, D., Fritz, S., King, J., & Boren, A. (2005). Principles of sustainable learning object libraries. Interdisciplinary Journal of Knowledge and Learning Objects, 1, 181–196.Google Scholar
- OSP (2005). Open-Source Portfolio, White paper: Understanding OSP. [Retrieved March 15, 2010 from http://www.rsmart.com/assets/understandingOSP_Dec2005.pdf].
- OWL (2010). Web Ontology Language (OWL), [Retrieved March 12, 2010 from http://www.w3.org/TR/owl-features/].
- Peirce, C. S. P. (1997). Pragmatism as a principle and method of right thinking. In P. A. Turrisi (Ed.), The 1903 Harvard lectures on pragmatism. Albany: State University of New York Press.Google Scholar
- Plous, S. (1993). The psychology of judgment and decision making. New York: McGraw-Hill.Google Scholar
- Quillian, R. (1968). Semantic memory. In M. Minsky (Ed.), Semantic information processing. Cambridge: MIT Press.Google Scholar
- Ritchhart, R. (2002). Intellectual character: What it is, why it matters, and how to get it. San Francisco: Jossey Bass.Google Scholar
- Senge, P. M. (1990). The fifth discipline: The art and practice of the learning organization. New York: Currency/Doubleday.Google Scholar
- Senge, P. M. (1996). Systems thinking. Executive Excellence, 13(1), 15–16.Google Scholar
- Simon, H. A. (1976). Administrative behavior (3rd ed.). New York: The Free Press.Google Scholar
- Simon, H. A. (1996). The sciences of the artificial (3rd ed.). Cambridge: The MIT Press.Google Scholar
- Singh, G., Hawkins, L., & Whymark, G. (2007). An integrated model of collaborative knowledge building. Interdisciplinary Journal of Knowledge and Learning Objects, 3, 85–105.Google Scholar
- Smrz, P. (2004). Integrating ontologies into learning management systems — A case of Czech. In R. Meersman, Z. Tari & A. Corsaro, OTM Workshops, LNCS 3292, 768–772.Google Scholar
- Snae, C., & Brueckner, M. (2007). Ontology-driven e-learning system based on roles and activities for Thai learning environment. Interdisciplinary Journal of Knowledge and Learning Objects, 3, 1–17.Google Scholar
- TaskStream (2010). TaskStream e-portfolio system, [Retrieved March 12, 2010 from https://www.taskstream.com/pub/].
- Wang, S. (1999a). Analyzing business information systems: An object-oriented approach. Boca Raton: CRC Press.Google Scholar
- Wang, S. (1999b). Organizational memory information system: A domain analysis in the object-oriented paradigm. Information Resources Management Journal, 12(2), 26–35.Google Scholar
- Wang, S. (2008). Ontology of learning objects repository for educational knowledge sharing. Interdisciplinary Journal of Knowledge and Learning Objects, 4, 1–12.Google Scholar
- Warnick, B., & Inch, E. S. (1994). Critical thinking and communication (2nd ed.). New York: Macmillan.Google Scholar
- Wiley, D. A. (2000). Learning object design and sequencing theory, Unpublished PhD Thesis, Brigham Young University, 2000.Google Scholar
- Wiley, D. A., & Edwards, E. K. (2002). Online self-organizing social systems: The decentralized future of online learning. Quarterly Review of Distance Education, 3(1), 33–46.Google Scholar
- W3C (2010). World Wide Web Consortium, [Retrieved March 18, 2010 from http://www.w3.org/].
- Zhang, S. X., Olfman, L., & Rectham, P. (2007). Designing eportfolio 2.0: Integrating and coordinating web 2.0 services with eportfolio systems for enhancing users’ learning. Journal of Information Systems Education, 18(2), 203–214.Google Scholar
- Zouaq, A., Nkambou, R., & Frasson, C. (2007). An integrated approach for automatic aggregation of learning knowledge objects. Interdisciplinary Journal of Knowledge and Learning Objects, 3, 135–162.Google Scholar
- Zubizarreta, J. (2004). The learning portfolio: Reflective practice for improving student learning. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.Google Scholar