the app project: 2 auburn professional eportfolio 3 or nhanced … final... · 2012-06-25 ·...

The APP Project: 1

Auburn Professional ePortfolio 2

For Enhanced Student Learning 3

4

5

Auburn University Quality Enhancement Plan 2012-2018 6

On site visit March 25-28, 2013 7

8

9

Executive Summary Auburn University: The APP Project – Draft for Discussion June 22, 2012

2

Executive Summary 1

How we chose the QEP topic: The Auburn Professional ePortfolio (APP) Project was chosen through a 2

broad-based, faculty-driven process. An initial Exploratory Committee researched areas of strength and 3

potential opportunities for improvement using existing institutional data, focus group interviews, and 4

surveys to identify broad possible topics. Concept papers were solicited from the Auburn Community 5

and from the twenty-five concept papers submitted, the QEP Exploratory Committee selected eight to 6

be developed into full pre-proposals. From the seven pre-proposals that were submitted, four were 7

identified as appropriate and forwarded to Senior Leadership which made the final selection of the 8

ePortfolio Project. 9

Definition of APP: Auburn Professional ePortfolios, or “APPs,” are Websites created by individual 10

Auburn students to communicate through diverse documents collected, selected, and organized by the 11

student to showcase skills and experiences. These documents are purposefully introduced, 12

contextualized, and arranged so that the target audience can evaluate the student’s suitability for 13

graduate study or employment. 14

What student learning outcomes are expected from the APP Project: The artifacts included in APPs are 15

produced over time and can include non-classroom experiences. Constructing the APP strengthens and 16

reinforces learning by providing an opportunity to reflect on experiences, to revisit and revise earlier 17

work, and to synthesize information and learning. Drawing on the mission and land grant tradition at 18

Auburn, APPs allow students to communicate what they have learned to diverse audiences by building a 19

visually effective digital argument about their educational experiences and crafting a multi-faceted 20

digital professional identity. The four overarching learning outcomes of the APP Project—a) effective 21

communication, b) critical thinking through reflection, c) technical competence, and d) visual 22

literacy—extend and deepen the education Auburn students are already experiencing. 23

What we will do: The APP Project includes twelve action items that support the development of 24

professional ePortfolios by: 1) Developing the infrastructure necessary to support students, faculty, and 25

programs; 2) Supporting student learning through an expansion of existing support units and increased 26

co-curricular activities like workshops, inter-session courses, and expanded on-line resources; and, 3) 27

Supporting faculty in developing and extending curriculum, mentoring students throughout the process 28

of creating their APPs, and connecting the APP Project to their teaching and research. 29

What impact we expect this project to have on Auburn University: The APP Project extends the Auburn 30

Writing Initiative begun in 2010. That initiative, also the result of a faculty-led task force, enhances the 31

culture of writing, broadly defined, primarily by requiring every undergraduate program to create a 32

writing plan that embeds significant writing experiences throughout the major. Though the APP Project 33

is not mandatory, it has been designed to support programs as they integrate isolated writing 34

experiences into coherent instructional plans that culminate in a professional ePortfolio. The APP 35

Project also supports students who wish to complete an ePortfolio even if their major does not require 36

them to do so, enhancing student learning beyond the curriculum. 37

1

Table of Contents Auburn University: The APP Project – Draft for Discussion June 22, 2012

3

Table of Contents 1

2

Executive Summary ............................................................................................................... 2 3

Table of Contents .................................................................................................................. 3 4

Table of Figures ..................................................................................................................... 6 5

Table of Sidebars ................................................................................................................... 6 6

Introduction .......................................................................................................................... 7 7

Process Used to Identify and Develop the APP Project ......................................................... 10 8

Overview of the Quality Enhancement Plan Exploratory Committee .............................................. 10 9

Overview of the QEP Development Committee ............................................................................. 11 10

Use of Data to Inform the Selection and Development of The APP Project ..................................... 13 11

National Survey of Student Engagement (NSSE) ................................................................................ 13 12

Consortium of Colleges Studying Writing (CCSW) .............................................................................. 13 13

Scholarship on ePortfolios .................................................................................................................. 14 14

Critical Thinking .................................................................................................................................. 14 15

Effect of Web-based Technologies ..................................................................................................... 15 16

Surveys of Alumni and Employers....................................................................................................... 16 17

Focus Groups ....................................................................................................................................... 17 18

Survey of the Campus Community ..................................................................................................... 17 19

Interviews with Individuals and Impacted Units ................................................................................. 18 20

The Association for Authentic, Experiential, and Experience-Based Learning (AAEEBL) ................... 18 21

Consultation Visit by Dr. Kathleen Yancey .......................................................................................... 21 22

Inclusion of the Auburn Community in the Selection and Development ......................................... 22 23

Information Dissemination ................................................................................................................. 23 24

Survey, Faculty Forums, and ePortfolio Webinars .............................................................................. 23 25

Public Vetting of the Draft Document ................................................................................................ 24 26

Student Learning Outcomes: ................................................................................................ 25 27

Outcome 1: Effective Communication ........................................................................................... 27 28

Elements of Outcome 1: ..................................................................................................................... 27 29

Outcome 2: Critical Thinking through Reflection ............................................................................ 27 30


Outcome 3: Technical competency................................................................................................ 28 32


Outcome 4: Visual literacy ............................................................................................................ 29 34



4

Literature Review and Best Practices: .................................................................................. 30 36

Why ePortfolios ........................................................................................................................... 30 37

Learning Associated with ePortfolios ............................................................................................ 31 38

Scholarship and Best Practices Included in the APP Project ............................................................ 32 39

Action Items: ....................................................................................................................... 34 40

Description of action items ........................................................................................................... 34 41

Correlation of Action Items to Student Learning Outcomes ........................................................... 42 42

For faculty, students or programs with no prior ePortfolio requirement .......................................... 43 43

For those with a non-digital portfolio requirement ........................................................................... 46 44

For those with a digital portfolio requirement ................................................................................... 47 45

Time Line............................................................................................................................. 48 46

Organizational Structure: ..................................................................................................... 50 47

Director of University Writing: ...................................................................................................... 50 48

APP Project Coordinator: .............................................................................................................. 50 49

Intern or GA Assistant to the APP Coordinator: ............................................................................. 50 50

Student Employee(s) for Staff Support: ......................................................................................... 50 51

Information Technology Specialist: ............................................................................................... 50 52

Instructional Technology Specialist: .............................................................................................. 51 53

Resources: ........................................................................................................................... 52 54

Provide Sufficient Space to Accommodate Implementation of the QEP .......................................... 52 55

Budget to Support Implementation of Action Items ...................................................................... 52 56

Assessment ......................................................................................................................... 54 57

Assessment of Student Learning Outcomes ................................................................................... 54 58

APP Assessment Activities of Student Learning Outcomes ................................................................ 56 59

Description of Assessment Activities ............................................................................................. 57 60

Departmental Activities: ..................................................................................................................... 57 61

Sample Evaluation Rubric for APPs ..................................................................................................... 59 62

College-level Assessment Activities .................................................................................................... 60 63

Institutional Assessment Activities ..................................................................................................... 61 64

National Assessment Activities ........................................................................................................... 62 65

Assessment of Impact of the APP Project ...................................................................................... 63 66

Impact on Students ............................................................................................................................. 63 67

Impact on Faculty ................................................................................................................................ 63 68

Impact on Curriculum ......................................................................................................................... 63 69

Impact on other (or all) Stakeholders ................................................................................................. 63 70

Assessment of Impact of the APP Project ........................................................................................... 65 71

Environmental Assessment Methods ................................................................................................. 66 72

Indirect Methods................................................................................................................................. 67 73

Direct Methods ................................................................................................................................... 68 74


5

Appendices: ........................................................................................................................ 70 75

APPENDIX A: Roster of Committees .............................................................................................. 70 76

Auburn University Quality Enhancement Plan Exploratory Committee, 2010-11.............................. 70 77

Auburn University Quality Enhancement Plan Development Committee: ........................................ 71 78

APPENDIX B: Criteria for Selecting ePortfolio Platform .................................................................. 72 79

APPENDIX C: Bibliography ............................................................................................................ 73 80

Works Cited: ........................................................................................................................................ 73 81

Works Consulted: ................................................................................................................................ 76 82

APPENDIX D: External Consultant Kathleen Yancey, Florida State University .................................. 77 83

APPENDIX E: List of Interested Participants ................................................................................... 78 84

Colleges & Programs Interested in Participation by Stages of Development ..................................... 78 85

APPENDIX F: Job Descriptions ....................................................................................................... 81 86

Coordinator, Auburn Professional ePortfolio (APP) Project ............................................................... 81 87

Information Technology Specialist ...................................................................................................... 82 88

APPENDIX G: Organizational Structure .......................................................................................... 84 89

Office of University Writing Organization: .......................................................................................... 84 90

Impacted Units Organization: ............................................................................................................. 85 91

APPENDIX H: Detailed Budget ....................................................................................................... 86 92

93

94

Tables of Figures and Sidebars Auburn University: The APP Project – Draft for Discussion June 22, 2012

6

Table of Figures 1

Figure 1: ePortfolio Concept Map ................................................................................................................. 9 2

Figure 2: Heather M. Hall, AU Apparel Design, 2012 .................................................................................. 12 3

Figure 3: The Quality Enhancement Plan Website WeWebWebsite .......................................................... 22 4

Figure 4: Example of a Professional ePortfolio with APP Learning Outcomes identified ........................... 26 5

Figure 5: William R. Hart, AU Architecture & Design 2009 ......................................................................... 31 6

Figure 6: Course Embedded Assessment Activities .................................................................................... 57 7

Figure 7: Sample Evaluation Rubric ............................................................................................................ 59 8

Figure 8: QEP Evidence of Impact ............................................................................................................... 65 9

Figure 9: Office of University Writing Organization Structure .................................................................... 84 10

Figure 10: Impacted Units ........................................................................................................................... 85 11

Table of Sidebars 12

Sidebar 1: Definition & Background of Reflection ........................................................................................ 8 13

Sidebar 2: Types of ePortfolios ................................................................................................................... 11 14

Sidebar 3: Library faculty quoted in the QEP Exploratory Committee’s survey summary. ........................ 13 15

Sidebar 4: Definition of Critical Thinking .................................................................................................... 14 16

Sidebar 5: Media and Digital Resource Lab Staff Member Interviewed for pre-proposal ......................... 15 17

Sidebar 6: Examples of Artifacts ................................................................................................................. 25 18

Sidebar 7: Definition of Audience ............................................................................................................... 27 19

Sidebar 8: Reflection in an APP ................................................................................................................... 27 20

Sidebar 9: Design Elements & Principles at Work in an APP ...................................................................... 29 21

Sidebar 10: Programs & Professional ePortfolios ....................................................................................... 37 22

Sidebar 11: Case Study ................................................................................................................................ 43 23

Sidebar 12: Suggestions & Possibilities ....................................................................................................... 44 24

Sidebar 13: Suggestions & Possibilities Continued ..................................................................................... 45 25

Sidebar 14: Sample Senior Exit Survey/Interview ....................................................................................... 60 26

27

1

Introduction Auburn University: The APP Project – Draft for Discussion June 22, 2012

7

Introduction 1

No matter what experiences we have, no matter how much we know or have learned, if we can’t 2

communicate our experiences and knowledge to others, we are less effective—even less educated—3

than we need to be. As a land-grant institution with a long tradition of interactions with the public, 4

Auburn University values and promotes experiences that take students into the world beyond the 5

campus. We expect our students to be able to communicate effectively with that world, translating 6

disciplinary knowledge to the public, moving gracefully between academic and public audiences, using 7

knowledge to impact real-world problems. Our students complete internships, take part in co-op 8

experiences, compete in sporting events and design contests, and travel abroad to further their studies, 9

conduct research, and serve others. Auburn students enrich their classroom experiences by participating 10

in community service projects of all kinds, joining various organizations, and conducting undergraduate 11

research. With a variety of academic programs available to them, Auburn students often move between 12

colleges or programs, changing their majors or forging interdisciplinary connections that stretch their 13

talents and prepare them for the world beyond. We expect students to synthesize what they learn from 14

these many experiences, both to make new knowledge and to become more conscious of the process of 15

learning. We want our students to be prepared for whatever the future brings by understanding how to 16

learn and how to communicate learning in multiple ways to multiple audiences. In the twenty-first 17

century, effective communication necessarily includes using various forms of technology to reach those 18

audiences. 19

Auburn students and faculty have consistently recognized the need for increased written and oral 20

communication skills. Writing and oral communication are a part of Auburn’s existing General Education 21

Student Learning Outcomes (see page 13), and improved communication is included as a learning 22

outcome for many professional programs offered at Auburn ranging from Architecture and Engineering 23

to Education, Pharmacy, and Rehabilitation Counseling. Communication and the need to improve the 24

communication skills of Auburn students was such a priority that a faculty task force was appointed in 25

2008 to study writing issues and make recommendations for improving writing and writing instruction 26

for Auburn students. Their work led to the Auburn Writing Initiative which was launched in January 2010 27

with the hiring of a Director of University Writing and the formation of the Office of University Writing. 28

The APP Project is a natural extension of that effort to enhance the culture of writing, broadly defined to 29

include all forms of communication, at Auburn. 30

http://www.auburn.edu/student_info/bulletin/2012_bulletin.pdf

http://www.auburn.edu/student_info/bulletin/2012_bulletin.pdf

https://fp.auburn.edu/writing/Default.aspx


8

Given the growing influence of technology, we need to ensure that our students have the ability to 31

communicate via technology as well as the confidence to use technology to learn. Drawing on the 32

abundant scholarship that suggests ePortfolios have significant advantages over paper portfolios, the 33

APP Project aims to create both the technological and academic infrastructure necessary for students to 34

1) collect their written, oral, and visual work across 35

multiple courses and extra-curricular experiences, 2) 36

reconsider those experiences, make connections, and 37

think critically about their experiences in order to 38

decide how best to present those experiences to 39

others, including public audiences beyond the 40

university, 3) understand and be able to use various 41

technologies in communicating to others, and 4) 42

effectively integrate visual materials of various kinds. 43

These elements are well illustrated in Figure 1. 44

Establishing the academic support structures that help 45

students create an APP will provide enriched learning 46

as students have opportunities for reflection and 47

synthesis and occasions to present their learning to 48

audiences both internal and external. Creating an APP 49

with various artifacts—oral, visual, and written—(See 50

Sidebar 6) will provide Auburn students the 51

sophisticated technological skills crucial for success, 52

enhance their communication skills, and allow them to 53

present the full range of their learning experiences to 54

a public audience. Thus, the APP Project enriches the 55

Auburn learning experience even as it captures and 56

communicates that experience to others. Indeed, a 57

search of the Auburn University Bulletin found twenty 58

programs already requiring paper portfolios and many 59

more that include capstone projects, senior theses, or 60

similar opportunities to capture and communicate 61

learning experiences as students approach graduation. 62

Reflection

Definition: Deliberate thinking about an experience

(e.g., action, event, or situation) that helps the learner

view the experience more meaningfully by “stepping

back” and critiquing the experience to mindfully

consider alternative decisions that improve results.

Background: Reflecting as a component of the learning

process was first described by Dewey who explained

the relationship between learning and experience.

Dewey described learning as “not learning things, but

the meaning of things”. (Dewey 1910, 1933).

Kolb’s experiential learning theory (1984) hypothesized

that the learner makes the experience meaningful by

reflecting upon it. Reflection is then categorized and

incorporated within a cognitive framework.

Hatton and Smith (1995) described reflection as

“deliberate thinking about action with a view to

improvement” and differentiated four types of writing

associated with reflection: 1) Descriptive writing:

description of events without the purpose of giving

reasons or justifications; 2) Descriptive reflection:

presents the reason or a justification following

descriptive writing; 3) Dialogue reflection: “stepping

back” and evaluating/or criticizing the events with

alternative suggestions; 4) Critical reflection: involves

moral and ethical criteria with awareness of the social,

historical or political context of the events/actions.

Ayan & Seferoglu (2010) study revealed that

ePortfolios gave participants a sense of ownership,

fostered reflective thinking, supported collaboration

and allowed them to make connections between

theory and practice.

Sidebar 1: Definition & Background of Reflection


9

63

64

65

66

Figure 1: ePortfolio Concept Map

Process Used to Identify and Develop the APP Project Auburn University: The APP Project – Draft for Discussion June 22, 2012

10

Process Used to Identify and Develop the APP Project 1

Overview of the Quality Enhancement Plan Exploratory Committee 2

The thirty-member Quality Enhancement Plan Exploratory Committee was constituted in August 2010 3

taking care to ensure broad representation from various campus divisions including both undergraduate 4

and graduate students, advisors, administrative and professional staff, alumni, and faculty from all 5

colleges and schools. The QEP Exploratory Committee included members experienced in student 6

learning, a representative from the Division of Student Affairs, and members that were conversant with 7

the University’s strategic plan. The resulting thirty-member committee (see Appendix A for the 8

complete roster) met fourteen times from September 2010 through April 2011. A review of QEP goals 9

and guidelines, followed by a thorough examination of best practices at peer universities and Auburn’s 10

institutional data augmented by focus group interviews conducted in December 2010, led to the 11

development of a working strategy to identify the most suitable QEP topics. 12

The topic search was conducted in three stages: 1) campus-wide survey and investigation of possible 13

topic areas, 2) submission and review of short QEP concepts, and 3) pre-proposal submission, review, 14

and final selection. Each stage was supported by an informative QEP website that was developed in 15

January 2011. The first stage, a campus-wide survey and investigation of possible topic areas, sought 16

input from all campus constituencies including students, staff, alumni, faculty, and administrators. 17

Invitations to participate were disseminated through multiple avenues and the results of this survey 18

were used in the second stage of the process to formulate a call for submission of QEP concepts, which 19

were short, two-paragraph descriptions of topic ideas. The eight most promising concepts from the 20

twenty-five submitted were identified and the authors were provided with $1500 stipends to develop 21

fifteen-page pre-proposals for the third stage. Based on the review of the seven full pre-proposals 22

submitted in April 2011, the QEP Exploratory Committee recommended the following four topics for 23

consideration to the Senior Leadership Team: 24

The Auburn University Global Leadership Challenge 25

The ePortfolio Project: Communicating Learning the Auburn Way 26

Financial Literacy for Today's Citizen 27

REACT: Research ACTive Students and Faculty 28

The Senior Leadership Team (President, Provost, Director of Institutional Research and Assessment, 29

Executive Vice President and CFO, President of University Senate) read all the final pre-proposals and 30

selected The ePortfolio Project: Communicating Learning the Auburn Way. The announcement was 31

made to the University Community in May 2011. 32


11

Types of ePortfolios:

Student Learning Portfolio: A tool that allows for

systematic documentation and reflection on skills

development, competency, and career readiness

resulting from a single course, an experience, or the

integration of multiple courses or experiences. It is

designed to enhance student learning and growth

through the use of self-reflection, integration,

metacognitive appraisal of the learning process, and

mentoring. (Zubizaretta 2009)

Assessment Portfolio: The major purpose of an

assessment portfolio is to document demonstrable,

measureable student competence, achievement, and

skill for well-delineated content areas and specified

frameworks. These portfolios are commonly premised

on end-of-course, program, or curriculum completion

assessments primarily used for evaluating student

performance. The major goal is to evaluate student

competency as defined by the achievement of program

and/or discipline standards and learning outcomes.

The assessment portfolio typically emphasizes the

summative component as contextualized within the

formal evaluation process. The focus of this type of

portfolio is typically on products. This type of portfolio

has an essential function its use as an assessment tool.

Professional ePortfolio: A collection of artifacts

selected by a student to showcase the knowledge,

skills and abilities they have developed as part of their

learning experience. The contents of the ePortfolio

include artifacts such as text-based, graphic, or

multimedia material that is archived on a web site and

is assessable to external audiences of the students

choosing. The APP Project provides the student the

opportunity to reflect on their learning experiences

and present their experiences in and out of the

classroom in a way that will aid them in achieving their

career goals.

Sidebar 2: Types of ePortfolios

Overview of the QEP Development Committee 33

The QEP Development Committee was formed 34

in September 2011 to develop a working plan to 35

implement the selected QEP topic of 36

ePortfolios. The Committee included 37

representatives from several colleges, including 38

three that were already in the process of 39

developing ePortfolios (see Appendix A for the 40

roster). The QEP Development Committee was 41

charged “to deliver a complete draft of a 42

working plan for Auburn’s e-portfolio project by 43

September 1, 2012. After an opportunity for 44

review and commentary by the campus 45

community, the final draft of the QEP document 46

will be submitted to the Southern Association of 47

Colleges and Schools Commission on Colleges 48

(SACSCOC) by January 2013.” In order to 49

accomplish this task, the Committee decided to: 50

1) research ePortfolio programs at other 51

universities; 2) determine how best to focus the 52

project to ensure success; 3) devise a thorough 53

plan for implementation; 4) create a budget; 5) 54

develop the timeline for implementing 55

ePortfolios at Auburn; 6) prepare a draft of a 56

detailed final report containing an account of its 57

work and its decisions regarding 58

implementation; 7) solicit input from the 59

Auburn community on the draft implementation 60

plan; and 8) incorporate suggestions into 61

revisions of that plan as they produced the final 62

document for SACSCOC. 63

The QEP Development Committee met for the 64

first time at the beginning of October 2011 and 65

continued to meet twenty-one times prior to 66

circulating the first draft of an implementation 67

plan. The Committee began by reviewing the 68

QEP pre-proposal, refining the student learning 69

outcomes, and gathering data from other QEP 70

projects and from ePortfolio initiatives at other 71

institutions belonging to SACSCOC. The 72

SACSCOC Handbook was consulted throughout 73


12

this process. The Committee recognized that the implementation plan needed to prioritize these 74

different types of ePortfolios and so began to investigate the differences. The Committee formed 75

subgroups to develop definitions of key terms, investigate commercial and open-source ePortfolio 76

software packages (see Appendix B for criteria for selecting a software package), and compile references 77

and website links to relevant information (see Appendix C). The Committee used this research to revise 78

the learning outcomes and develop specific measureable elements of each outcome. In November 2011, 79

two members of the Committee attended a Conference on ePortfolios at Virginia Tech and brought back 80

recommendations (see details below). 81

The pre-proposal on ePortfolios identified three different kinds of ePortfolios: 1) a portfolio archive, or 82

learning portfolio, 2) a programmatic 83

portfolio, or assessment-centered 84

portfolio, and 3) a showcase or 85

professional portfolio (See Sidebar 2 86

for definitions). After much 87

discussion, the decision was made to 88

focus the Auburn ePortfolio Project 89

(APP) on career or professional 90

ePortfolios. “Professional” became 91

the preferred term for naming the 92

project so that it will be understood 93

by various stakeholders. The decision 94

to focus on professional ePortfolios 95

was made because the research the 96

Committee conducted, the literature 97

it reviewed, and the feedback it 98

received from practitioners at other 99

universities suggested that 100

assessment portfolios are less useful 101

for promoting engaged learning. 102

Since students and faculty tend to think of assessment portfolios as “busywork” that is disconnected 103

from teaching, learning or demonstrating competencies in the real world, it is more difficult to sustain 104

faculty and student participation in assessment-driven portfolios. The Committee found that the 105

portfolios already being undertaken by various programs at Auburn focused more on helping students 106

demonstrate their abilities and synthesize their experiences as they approached graduation. For 107

example, students in the Apparel Design Program create ePortfolios in connection with their senior 108

design projects targeting the kinds of positions they hope to secure upon graduation (see Figure 2). The 109

Committee recognized that APPs also encompass preliminary learning portfolios, as students assemble 110

relevant artifacts and demonstrate their abilities within specific courses. 111

The QEP Development Committee identified members of the Auburn community who were interested in 112

ePortfolios and invited their participation. In March 2012, Kathleen Yancey of Florida State University, 113

Showcasing my design work in an ePortfolio format allowed me to express

my passion for the bridal industry, and demonstrate my abilities in web

design, illustration, and writing. It helped me find a job where I can utilize all

those skills, even without having editorial experience.

Figure 2: Heather M. Hall, AU Apparel Design, 2012


13

an internationally recognized expert on ePortfolios, was invited to campus to consult with the 114

Committee and review draft documents (See Appendix D for details about Dr. Yancey). Preliminary 115

discussions were held with Auburn’s Provost and SACSCOC liaison to ensure that the scope of the 116

project, proposed structure, and anticipated budget were in keeping with long-term institutional goals 117

and resource allocation. After Dr. Yancey’s visit, the Committee substantially revised and refined the 118

student learning outcomes, the original timeline, and the budget based on these consultations and 119

suggestions. In June 2012, a draft of the implementation plan was circulated to those who had 120

expressed interest and their suggestions were incorporated into revisions of the plan, which was 121

released to the campus community on September 1, 2012. Several public forums and presentations 122

about the project occurred in Fall 2012, with the QEP Development Committee meeting regularly to 123

discuss suggestions and incorporate revisions. The final document was submitted to the Senior 124

Leadership Team and was ready for submissions to SACSCOC by the January 2013 deadline. 125

Use of Data to Inform the Selection and Development of The APP Project 126

Throughout the process of selecting the topic and developing the implementation plan both QEP 127

Committees compiled and analyzed relevant data. Both Committees reviewed other institutions’ QEP 128

documents, consulted with QEP coordinators at peer institutions, and compiled research relevant to 129

their assigned tasks. 130

National Survey of Student Engagement (NSSE) 131

The QEP is meant to arise out of an analysis of on-going institutional data; thus, both Committees 132

considered the data from NSSE and other assessment documents. A summary of the NSSE data collected 133

at Auburn University in 2002, 2004, and from 2006-2010 is available at: 134

https://oira.auburn.edu/assessment/articles/nsse_default_new.aspx. Analysis of this data first led the 135

QEP Exploratory Committee in its development of areas for greatest improvement including: 136

level of academic challenge for both first-year students and seniors 137

student-faculty interactions for both first-year students and seniors 138

enriching experiences for seniors 139

active and collaborative learning for first-year students 140

communication 141

diversity/globalization/internationalization 142

Current areas of strength that were identified were citizenship and service. 143

Consortium of Colleges Studying Writing (CCSW) 144

The QEP Development Committee also reviewed the 145

National Survey of Student Engagement data and the 146

results of Auburn’s participation in the Consortium of 147

Colleges Studying Writing in 2010. The data from the 28 148

additional questions asked as a part of the Consortium 149

Survey reveals more specifically where the writing 150

experiences of Auburn students differ on average from 151

"We can't prepare students for every possible situation they may encounter once they leave, so they've got to realize that we're training them to think problems through and find solutions, especially when those solutions may not be obvious ones."

Sidebar 3: Library faculty quoted in the QEP Exploratory Committee’s survey summary.

https://oira.auburn.edu/assessment/articles/nsse_default_new.aspx


14

the writing experiences of their peers at institutions in the consortium. Both first-year students and 152

seniors report having fewer opportunities to describe their experiences and summarize readings. 153

Seniors report having fewer occasions to argue a position with evidence and first-year students report 154

fewer opportunities to create projects that include multimedia such as web pages, posters, slide 155

presentations or PowerPoint (Office of Institutional Research and Assessment 2010). One of the most 156

startling findings is that few students in the consortium colleges, either as seniors or in their first year, 157

prepare a portfolio that collects work from more than one class, yet Auburn students fall significantly 158

behind this minimal level. 159

Scholarship on ePortfolios 160

The QEP Development Committee consulted a range of published scholarship on ePortfolios. The 161

Consortium of Colleges Studying Writing question about preparing a portfolio that collects work from 162

more than one class arises from that abundant scholarship. For example, LaGuardia Community College 163

(2006) found that ePortfolios have the potential to be a transformative learning project not only for 164

students and for faculty, but also for the institution as a whole. To determine whether ePortfolio 165

processes supported student engagement, LaGuardia compared 2005-6 data from ePortfolio and non-166

ePortfolio classes, examining questions drawn from various academic areas including critical thinking, 167

writing, technology, and collaborative learning. Their data documented major gains for the students 168

completing ePortfolios on virtually every measure. Likewise, a study conducted at Virginia Tech 169

University (Young 2006), found that providing students with multiple opportunities to revisit a particular 170

experience through reflection and occasions to revise an initial reflection at various points in a program, 171

facilitated much more explicit and critical thinking. Also, the final reflection included in student 172

ePortfolios compared with the formative versions established that 173

students’ perspectives about their learning experiences evolved 174

over time, and that returning to earlier learning experiences and the 175

documents that represented those experiences facilitated students’ 176

consideration of how those learning experiences would be used in 177

their careers and in their professional identities. Results from a 178

quantitative study undertaken at Bowling Green State University 179

(2006) showed that, after controlling for background factors, 180

undergraduate students completing ePortfolios had significantly 181

higher grade point averages, credit hours earned, and retention 182

rates than a matched set of students without ePortfolios. 183

Reflection activities embedded in the APP Project foster critical self-184

assessment, synthesis, and awareness of one’s own learning 185

processes. Indeed, “critical thinking” and “problem solving” both 186

emerged as synonyms for “reflection” from John Dewey’s work in 187

this area in the early twentieth century (Shermis 1999). As with 188

communication skills, critical thinking and problem solving are highly 189

valued broad-based skills valued by employers. In a Survey of 190

Employers commissioned by the American Association of Colleges 191

Critical Thinking “Critical thinking is the intellectually

disciplined process of actively and

skillfully conceptualizing, applying,

analyzing, synthesizing, and/or

evaluating information gathered from,

or generated by, observation,

experience, reflection, reasoning, or

communication, as a guide to belief and

action. In its exemplary form, it is based

on universal intellectual values that

transcend subject matter divisions:

clarity, accuracy, precision, consistency,

relevance, sound evidence, good

reasons, depth, breadth, and fairness.”

(Scriven and Paul 1987).

Sidebar 4: Definition of Critical Thinking


15

and Universities (AAC&U 2007), 81% of employers said critical thinking and analytical reasoning skills 192

were both important and needed more emphasis in college programs. Applying knowledge and skills to 193

real-world settings through internships or other hands-on experiences were important and in need of 194

improvement for 79% of the employers. As noted above, ePortfolios allow students to not only capture 195

such moments of connection and application in their college career, but also provide the means of 196

demonstrating these complex problem solving and application abilities. 197

Effect of Web-based Technologies 198

The effect of web-based technologies on students’ analytical and critical-thinking skills is a much-199

debated subject. Some practitioners, like T. Mills Kelly (2006), have argued persuasively that Web-based 200

technologies can be a valuable part of the contemporary learning and research experience. Others, for 201

example Mark Bauerlein (2009), have argued equally persuasively that Web-based technologies—202

especially social-networking technologies like Twitter and Facebook—have degraded students’ thinking 203

and impaired their writing skills. The point that emerges clearly from this polemic is that Web-based 204

technologies, like other powerful technologies before them, can be used to good or ill effect. The APP 205

Project uses new technologies in a positive way by combining them with traditional methods of teaching 206

and research to produce sophisticated, well-designed ePortfolios that showcase written, visual, and 207

audio materials created by Auburn students. The prospect of having one’s academic work made 208

available for scrutiny by potential employers, admissions officers, or other gatekeepers encourages 209

students to take the exercise seriously and put forth their 210

best efforts. 211

For better or worse, technology is the future. Whether it 212

takes the form of a Facebook page or a scholarly Web site, 213

technology permeates our lives and the lives of our 214

students. The value of using ePortfolios relative to paper for 215

a required portfolio assignment was documented by the 216

University of Washington (October 2006). These researchers 217

reported that the strongest ePortfolios submitted by 218

students were equal to or better than the strongest paper 219

portfolios. But “technological competence” does not consist 220

of mastering a single narrow skill or technique. Rather, it is 221

an approach to technology that comprises learning, 222

adapting, and reconfiguring technology for useful purposes. 223

Interestingly, recent research provides emergent clarity 224

about under what circumstances and to what extent “Net 225

Generation” students utilize e-technologies (Ramanau, Hosein, and Jones 2010). In this longitudinal 226

study, students in fourteen different courses at five different universities were tracked for their use of 227

technology for social and study purposes. The findings suggest that while younger students are frequent 228

users of technology for social purposes, they are less adept at utilizing technology for academic 229

purposes. Obviously, students come to Auburn with varying degrees of technological competence, but 230

even the most technologically savvy students do not always know the full features of the technologies 231

“The MDRL sees many levels of technological competence, but it's those without it who stand out. A great many of our patrons lack basic skills such as scanning, image basics, text composition, even understanding concepts of units, scale and proportion. Images are often 'lifted' from the web without acknowledging the source. Such skills can and should be taught aggressively in order for students to succeed in their future careers.”

Sidebar 5: Media and Digital Resource Lab Staff Member Interviewed for pre-proposal


16

they use, may not have opportunities to experiment with new technologies, and may not be enrolled in 232

programs where technological skills are taught rather than merely expected. Building technological 233

competence requires teaching students to learn for life, not merely to master a perishable skill set that 234

may soon become obsolete. A good part of learning technology requires the ability to use all available 235

resources to gain confidence and competence with different technological tools. However, experience 236

can expedite the learning process: as a student gains hands-on experience with one technology, it 237

becomes easier to acquire and master others. It should be expected that students will be more 238

competent in certain areas than in others since it is almost as difficult to master all aspects of 239

technology as it would be to become an expert in all sub-fields of any discipline. Still, producing an APP 240

will give students exposure to and practice in mastering commonly used technologies that will help 241

them discover, learn, and adapt to other technologies as they emerge and evolve. 242

Chang’s (2001) study of Web-based learning noted that ePortfolios allow students to make choices 243

about their own learning and become self-directed learners, choosing which technologies they need for 244

their own purposes and mastering those that are most essential in the process. In addition, surveys of 245

students using an ePortfolio system at Penn State concluded that students highly value learning the 246

skills that enable them to publish on the web (Johnson, Hsieh & Kidwai 2007). Many other institutions 247

have established ePortfolio systems that allow students to reflect on and showcase their learning 248

experiences. Though several of these are embedded in specific disciplines like Nursing and Education 249

where state certification requires assessment at the individual student documents level, others focus on 250

interdisciplinary minors or certificates added to existing majors (e.g. Louisiana State University’s 251

Communication Across the Curriculum Program and their Distinguished Communicators’ Portfolios at 252

http://cxc.lsu.edu/Portfolios.html). As of 2012, the AAC&U records over 12,000 students enrolled in 253

ePortfolio courses, with over 400 universities using ePortfolios. This movement is global and is spanning 254

a multitude of countries (Clark and Eynon 2012). So many universities have adopted ePortfolios, in fact, 255

that an International Coalition for Electronic Portfolio Research was formed in 2001 and has enrolled 54 256

different institutions from around the world, including many land-grant institutions in six different 257

cohort groups (see details at http://ncepr.org/). 258

Surveys of Alumni and Employers 259

Surveys of alumni in a wide range of disciplines identify oral and written communication as essential to 260

success, though most employers expect students to have both a broad range of skills and specific in-261

depth knowledge in their field (Hart Research Associates 2010). The AAC&U survey of employers found 262

that 89% identified communicating effectively, orally and in writing, an essential skill they not only 263

expect of college graduates but also the number one area which they believe colleges need to 264

emphasize more strongly (Hart Research Associates 2010). This same study indicated that employers, no 265

matter the size of the company, expect graduates to handle more complex problems and connect their 266

classroom learning to internships, research experiences and other hands-on experiences. As the AAC&U 267

Vice President for Quality, Curriculum, and Assessment points out, ePortfolios allow prospective 268

employers to see students’ abilities in a way they simply can’t in resumes, transcripts or reference 269

letters (Rhodes 2011). Local studies confirm that these skills are essential but not fully mastered by 270

graduates. Auburn’s survey of alumni, for example, reported only 29.2% who thought their preparation 271

http://cxc.lsu.edu/Portfolios.html

http://ncepr.org/


17

in written communication was excellent (Office of Institutional Research and Assessment 2009). 272

Likewise, only 28.6% of these alumni reported that their oral preparation was excellent, with 22.9% 273

reporting that their preparation in this area was fair or poor. Since ePortfolios can include both written 274

and oral artifacts, they allow students to practice both forms of communication. 275

Focus Groups 276

The QEP Exploratory Committee conducted eight focus groups—two each with advisors and faculty, one 277

with graduate students, and three with undergraduate students. The total number of participants was 278

seventy-five. The primary findings of needs and improvement for Auburn University across all focus 279

groups were grouped into five key areas: 280

• Better quality of instruction for greater engagement in large lecture classes 281 • Greater interdisciplinary approaches to programs through undergraduate projects and 282 research 283 • Increase in academic support, advising, and career development 284 • The need to emphasize professional skills such as critical thinking, problem-solving, and 285 communication skills 286 • Expanded opportunities for study abroad and increase in global and cultural perspectives 287

The focus group information was to develop and implement a campus-wide survey (described below) to 288

provide broad-based feedback from all stakeholders, and to gain a deeper understanding of the general 289

areas in which a QEP topic might be successful and well-supported. 290

Survey of the Campus Community 291

The QEP Exploratory Committee also conducted a survey which combined qualitative information from 292

sources such as the focus groups and the strategic plan with quantitative information from National 293

Survey of Student Engagement and the Collegiate Learning Assessment (CLA). The information was 294

synthesized into a cohesive set of core areas and topics that provided the best chance to garner QEP 295

topics that met the general guiding principles of QEP topic selection: (1) delineate topical areas of 296

greatest perceived need from the surveyed community, and (2) tie directly back to assessable learning 297

outcomes that connected to on-going institutional self-assessment. In discussions with the full 298

Committee, the survey was broadened in focus to meet the needs of all stake-holders, not just students. 299

The resulting Quality Enhancement Plan Topic Survey Instrument was launched on January 31 via the 300

QEP website using the Qualtrics survey tool. The response to the survey was extensive and broad-based 301

with 239 respondents. This information resulted in the identification of the top eleven QEP topic areas 302

that were of greatest interest to survey respondents, and the top ten most desirable skills and abilities 303

for Auburn students. 304

In both the survey and focus group sessions, the importance of including communication in the QEP 305

project was clear since communication received more responses as an important skill for Auburn 306

graduates than any other identified skill. In that same survey, writing experiences were also identified as 307

important for Auburn graduates, with scores only slightly less (19) than hands on experiences (25) and 308

critical thinking (21). In the focus groups conducted by the QEP Exploratory Committee, communication, 309

critical thinking and job skills were among the consistent threads mentioned across all groups. 310


18

Opportunities for integrating material across courses were also mentioned as important. Though the 311

CLA results have demonstrated that Auburn students improve their critical thinking and analytical 312

abilities over the course of their experiences here, this “value added” improvement may well be lost on 313

Auburn’s increasingly bright students if they are not provided with challenging learning experiences. In 314

the QEP Exploratory Committee’s survey asking how much emphasis Auburn should place on particular 315

areas, activities that help develop critical thinking had the highest mean score of the 19 areas listed; of 316

239 respondents, 179 gave activities that develop critical thinking heavy emphasis, while another 44 317

gave it some emphasis. On that same survey, critical thinking was second only to hands-on experiences. 318

Interviews with Individuals and Impacted Units 319

As part of the process of gathering information, members of the QEP Development Committee 320

interviewed individuals across campus whose units will be impacted by the spread of ePortfolios 321

through a range of disciplines. The Biggio Center for the Enhancement of Teaching and Learning and the 322

Instructional Media Group, two units that provide pedagogical support to faculty, were consulted about 323

the impact of ePortfolios on the services they provide and their capacity to increase appropriate 324

services. Both agreed to expand existing workshops to include support for faculty and departments that 325

want to require or encourage APPs from their students. The Media and Digital Resource Lab, the Ralph 326

Brown Draughon Library, the Miller Writing Center, and Auburn University Career Services—units that 327

provide support and training to students—were also consulted. All areas agreed to provide different 328

kinds of support—whether with the production of documents, presentation space, tutoring support for 329

document development, or employer/audience counseling. Initially, units will be able to provide services 330

with their existing resources, but as the number of disciplines requiring portfolios grows, additional staff 331

and equipment support may be needed. These concerns were incorporated into the budget and 332

timeline. In addition, individual meetings were held with the Department Chairs and Associate Deans 333

and their suggestions were incorporated into the draft document. 334

The Association for Authentic, Experiential, and Experience-Based Learning (AAEEBL) 335

The AAEEBL is the main communication forum and collaboration venue for the international ePortfolio 336

community. The QEP Development Committee therefore recommended that Auburn join AAEEBL as an 337

institutional member, which was approved. As part of the Committee’s exploratory work, two 338

Committee members attended the AAEEBL Conference on ePortfolios at Virginia Tech in November 339

2011. There they had the opportunity to talk with ePortfolio coordinators at other universities, students 340

who are doing ePortfolios, and vendors of ePortfolio software. They returned from the conference with 341

a list of guiding principles and ideas for further action. Chief among the findings were the following: 342

Don’t lead with assessment. According to a presentation done by students at Clemson 343

University (Wallace and Ellis 2011; Ellis, et al. 2011), buy-in by students and faculty is lacking and 344

the entire program is driven by bureaucratic, top-down concerns about assessing core 345

curriculum. This has resulted in a “document-dump” approach to ePortfolios; the integrative or 346

professional ePortfolio is an afterthought that most students don’t do and don’t see as relevant 347

to their learning. The document-dump portfolio is typically cobbled together at the last minute 348

as a graduation requirement and is not an example of engaged learning. There was considerable 349

frustration expressed by undergraduates and by graduate students who are involved in the 350


19

project or teach courses in departments where portfolio components are supposed to be 351

taught. The university uses undergraduate peers as “evaluators” of the portfolios in addition to 352

designated faculty, and there is skepticism about how those evaluations work. Apparently, some 353

faculty members tell students not to bother with doing the portfolio even though it’s a 354

graduation requirement; and the students reported that, after the initial orientation week 355

introduction to the system and the requirement, no faculty member or advisor ever mentioned 356

ePortfolios again. 357

Faculty perceptions of ePortfolios differ. Negativity seems to increase when the emphasis is on 358

assessment and when faculty lack a sense of ownership in the idea or are not involved in 359

changing the curriculum or pedagogy required to support ePortfolios. 360

Awards or recognitions for students who do outstanding portfolios are more productive than 361

cash incentives. This approach was mentioned in several of the presentations, including the 362

student panel from Clemson and in personal conversations with the directors of various 363

programs. 364

Technology is not as important as pedagogy. Because many commercial ePortfolio platforms 365

are designed around assessment, they aren’t always easily adapted to the professional or 366

integrative portfolio. Those that are (e.g. DigiCation) seem to have two separate components: 367

one for assessment purposes and one for creating professional ePortfolios. Students can create 368

different career and professional portfolios for different audiences in these systems; and the 369

ability to easily move documents back and forth seems to be an important feature. Many 370

commercial products that are assessment-based reflect specific kinds of professional 371

accreditation assessment, so one product rarely works for all programs/needs. That said, having 372

too many different platforms to support isn’t useful either. Tying the ePortfolio initiative to a 373

specific ePortfolio software package made lead faculty and students to say, “ePortfolios don’t 374

work” when that package fails to meet their needs. Almost everyone the QEP committee 375

members talked with said that the technology issues will evolve as the program expands and 376

needs become clearer. However, such evolutions don’t have to be missteps if the technology 377

does not become the focus of the ePortfolio project. 378

Multipurpose ePortfolio platforms can help faculty create interconnected learning 379

experiences across multiple courses and course project sites for shared group projects. Such 380

platforms allow faculty to easily model the creation of shared work spaces (as in a learning 381

portfolio) or finished documents (as in a professional portfolio). These kinds of assignments can 382

move students out of classroom-only work and into the real world and foster collaboration, peer 383

review, and reflection. When done on the same platform, documents can be moved by students 384

into their own professional portfolios or into department-required assessment portfolios. Doing 385

similar work on other systems seems to be more problematic. For example, using Facebook for 386

ePortfolios blurs the distinction between personal space and professional/academic work. 387

Similarly, blogs, wikis, and discussion threads seem not to be as flexible or adaptable and aren’t 388

as easily integrated with these other uses. An especially good presentation by faculty in 389

different disciplines at La Guardia Community College illustrated the use of ePortfolios in 390


20

individual courses, in projects shared across several courses, and in final professional ePortfolios 391

(Bhika, et al. 2011). 392

Starting small is key. Pedagogy and curriculum have to change in order for “deep learning” to 393

happen with ePortfolios. As one presenter put it, “ePortfolios will change your college” (Eynon 394

2011). 395

Starting small goes for the administrative structure as well. In many conversations with 396

directors and faculty participants it became clear that the administrative structure can start with 397

a single ePortfolio coordinator and work with existing structures like the Biggio Center for the 398

Enhancement of Teaching and Learning, the Media and Digital Resource Lab, Office of 399

Information Technology, the Instructional Media Group, the Writing Center, learning 400

communities, sustainability, service learning, undergraduate research, and so forth. However, 401

additional personnel will be needed as the program is implemented, gathers momentum, and 402

expands to other departments and colleges. Virginia Tech’s program grew in much this way. 403

Reflection is key. Effective reflection was defined in one conference session as: 1) present; 2) 404

systematic and disciplined; 3) analytic; 4) a social process; and 5) supportive of student growth 405

(though growth in what depends on the specific context and the structure provided by that 406

context) (Eynon and Gambino 2011). Faculty tend to need help seeing the value of this activity; 407

some disciplines react negatively to the word “reflection” and understand the value of reflection 408

better when other words are used to name this practice, e.g. “analysis,” “self-assessment,” 409

“synthesis,”or “application to lived experience.” Faculty also need strategies for how to help 410

students learn to reflect through structured assignments/intentional prompts. Adding the social 411

interaction dimension to reflection seemed to be something most teachers are not doing, even 412

when they have already incorporated reflection into their courses. 413

Faculty members need time to adjust to ePortfolios. They need time to work with other faculty 414

on thinking through how to use the technology, how to alter their curricula and pedagogy, and 415

how to revise their approaches as they try to implement ePortfolios and achieve the integrative 416

thinking that is the goal of ePortfolios. 417

Some of the most interesting work in e-portfolios seems to be happening at community 418

colleges. Example: LaGuardia Community College in New York. 419

ePortfolios aren’t just for undergraduates. Graduate students can create ePortfolios too. In 420

fact, Virginia Tech has an NSF CAREER grant to do this with graduate students in Engineering 421

(McNair and Garrison 2011). 422

There are research possibilities in ePortfolios. ePortfolios are a good vehicle for helping 423

undergraduate and graduate students to learn research methods like interviewing, document 424

analysis, literature review, IRB processes, the standards for human subjects research, and so 425

forth (Eynon 2011). 426

The insights and information obtained at the AAEEBL Virginia Tech conference had a strong influence on 427

the Committee’s subsequent work and recommendations, especially those having to do with 428

administrative structure, the decision to emphasize career or professional ePortfolios, and the decision 429

to de-emphasize technology in the implementation plan and the recommended budget. 430


21

Consultation Visit by Dr. Kathleen Yancey 431

The QEP Development Committee arranged for a consultation visit by Dr. Kathleen Yancey of Florida 432

State University (see Appendix D for Dr. Yancey’s credentials). Dr. Yancey visited Auburn University on 433

March 27-28, 2012 at the invitation of the Committee. In her day and a half at Auburn, Dr. Yancey had a 434

working lunch with potential ePortfolio participants and interested faculty members, received a tour of 435

Career Services, the Media and Digital Resource Lab, and the Learning Commons in the Ralph Brown 436

Draughon Library, an open-concept student study space that also houses common student support 437

services like the Miller Writing Center. Dr. Yancey, who had been furnished beforehand with a summary 438

of the QEP Committee’s work to date, including the student learning outcomes, the draft budget, and 439

the draft timeline, met twice for in-depth discussions with the QEP Development Committee. She 440

provided a detailed critique of the draft documents in her meetings with the Committee, in the course 441

of which she made the following points and suggestions: 442

ePortfolio creation is a social, face-to-face activity, and portfolios are “living documents” 443

Focus on the learning outcomes at all points in the process—use them as guides, to promote 444

consistency 445

Visual design is not the same in all disciplines; balance decentralization with uniformity 446

Separate the outcomes you can see in the final ePortfolio from those that are necessary to the 447

process of creating the ePortfolio 448

If you require an element or outcome, you have to have an assessment rubric for it 449

Provide guidelines for students about selecting artifacts or they will choose their favorites, not 450

necessarily their best or most appropriate work 451

Don’t make ePortfolios compulsory, at least not to start with 452

Use the ePortfolio project to get departments thinking about artifact creation early in the 453

curriculum 454

Keep the ePortfolio project separate from the Writing Initiative, in order to avoid tying the fate 455

of one to the other, but use the lessons you’ve learned from other initiatives to inform the APP 456

Project 457

Have a working definition of an ePortfolio that addresses seven aspects: collection, selection, 458

reflection, development, diversity, evaluation, and audience 459

Involve students in the evaluation of learning outcomes 460

Technology—the choice of ePortfolio software, for example—is important but not the primary 461

focus of the project; therefore, adjust the budget accordingly 462

Identify and focus on “pockets of prestige” at Auburn (e.g. the Rural Studio) 463

“Critical mass” will occur when 25%-30% of departments, faculty, and students at Auburn are 464

doing ePortfolios 465

Highlight the ePortfolio as a set of practices and not just a product 466

Help students think about what employers will want to see and how many artifacts are enough; 467

help employers learn to read ePortfolios. Use the experiences with both to inform the project 468

Use alumni and existing industry advisory boards to help identify the useful components and 469

expectations for an ePortfolio within specific disciplines 470


22

Figure 3: The Quality Enhancement Plan Website WeWebWebsite

Dr. Yancey and the Committee arrived at a list of specific action items for implementing the ePortfolio 471

project at Auburn: 472

Move timeline up: get started in early 2013 or fall 2012 473

Define the role of employers in the APP project and how to involve them in it 474

Form a Coordinating Council and appoint members to it by January 2013 earlier if possible 475

Consider forming an Industry Advisory Board (IAB) 476

Build on existing initiatives and supporting units 477

Involve students in promotion of and communication about ePortfolios 478

Define the role of graduate students in the project 479

Do awards (e.g. IAB award dinner), including awards in different categories. Follow winners 480

beyond Auburn 481

Define what a “quality” APP looks like 482

Put more resources into workshops for both faculty and students 483

Inclusion of the Auburn Community in the Selection and Development 484

Throughout the selection and development of the APP Project, care has been taken to include the 485

Auburn Campus Community. Care was taken that both the QEP Exploratory and the QEP Development 486

Committees included broad representation and that information was disseminated and input was 487

solicited from all stakeholders throughout the process. 488

489

490


23

Information Dissemination 491

The QEP Exploratory Committee’s Information Dissemination Plan Subcommittee recommended several 492

methods of disseminating information to the campus community in December 2010. An interactive 493

website, http://www.auburn.edu/communications_marketing/qep/ maintained by the Office of 494

Communications and Marketing, was established in January 2011 to provide information to and solicit 495

feedback from the campus community (see Figure 3). Presentations were made in the Spring Semester 496

2011 to various campus agencies such as the Administrative and Professional Assembly and the Student 497

Government Association. Katelyn Boston, the undergraduate student representative on the QEP 498

Exploratory Committee took responsibility for distributing flyers to increase the level of student 499

involvement. As mentioned above, the QEP Exploratory Committee conducted focus groups, 500

administered a survey, collected concept submissions, and invited pre-proposals to select the most 501

viable topic for the QEP. Likewise, the QEP Development Committee took several steps to ensure that 502

the campus community was informed about and had an opportunity to help shape the details of the APP 503

Project as it was being developed. 504

Survey, Faculty Forums, and ePortfolio Webinars 505

In January-February 2012, the QEP Development Committee compiled an initial list of departments and 506

programs using portfolios of any kind and administered an all-faculty survey to collect further 507

information about the extent of interest on campus in developing professional ePortfolios which give 508

students the opportunity to reflect on their studies and experiences across multiple courses and present 509

their work in a public Website that they will be able to reference as they made the transition to post-510

graduate life (See Appendix E: List of Interested Participants). The survey garnered over 60 responses 511

from administrators and faculty members in the colleges of Agriculture, Architecture, Design, and 512

Construction, Business, Education, Engineering, Human Sciences, Liberal Arts, Nursing, Pharmacy, and 513

Sciences and Mathematics, as well as Career Services, the Graduate School, and the Libraries. The QEP 514

Development Committee asked the University Writing Committee to add a question about the use of 515

ePortfolios to their Review of Writing Plans scheduled for fall 2012. The list of participants continued to 516

grow throughout the spring and summer so that it included nearly 80 individuals by the time the draft 517

document was circulated in mid-June. The additional information from the University Writing 518

Committee’s Review of Writing Plans will be incorporated into the document in the fall 2012 term. 519

In order to capitalize on the survey, the QEP Development Committee organized a lunchtime forum for 520

interested faculty members on February 16, 2012. Sixteen faculty members and administrators attended 521

the forum, which opened with an introduction to APPs (with examples) and a summary of the 522

Committee’s work to date, and then proceeded to small-group discussions. The participants identified 523

other administrators and faculty members who should be invited to future events, shared what they are 524

doing with portfolios or ePortfolios in their colleges and departments, discussed challenges they have 525

encountered or foresee in implementing ePortfolios, made recommendations for promoting the 526

adoption of ePortfolios across campus, and touched on other points having to do with ePortfolios at 527

Auburn. Concerns centered on the need for a dedicated central support infrastructure, the desirability 528

of a common ePortfolio software platform (with the option to use something else if preferred), the 529

http://www.auburn.edu/communications_marketing/qep/

https://fp.auburn.edu/writing/constructingPlan.aspx


24

importance of encouraging students to start working towards an APP early in their university career, and 530

the difficulty and necessity of achieving faculty buy-in in the face of other, competing demands. 531

In early 2012, the Libraries began hosting a series of Webinars on various ePortfolio software packages 532

and advertising them to the Auburn community. Entitled “Exploring ePortfolio Technologies: Reviewing 533

Platforms and Approaches for Teaching, Learning and Beyond”, the series was conducted jointly by 534

AAEEBL, ePortfolio Action and Communication (EPAC), and ePortfolio California. It ran from September 535

2011 through April 2012 and covered 14 ePortfolio software packages, including Digication, 536

Desire2Learn, Mahara, TaskStream, Chalk and Wire, and RCampus. 537

Finally, members of the QEP Development Committee talked with department chairs and individual 538

faculty members involved with existing ePortfolio courses and attended a seminar conducted by faculty 539

in the Consumer Affairs Department which showcases the ePortfolios being completed and the 540

curriculum which supported ePortfolios in all three tracks of that major: Apparel Design, Interior Design, 541

and Merchandising. Faculty members outside the Committee contributed to the construction of the plan 542

and the final written document by reviewing drafts in process, and serving as consultants for particular 543

sections. Gary Wagoner, Chair of the Art Department, for example, help compose the explanation of 544

design elements and principles in Sidebar 9. 545

Public Vetting of the Draft Document 546

(This section needs to be filled in once the fall 2012 vetting process is planned. Anticipate at least: 547

presentations to University Senate, Student Government, Academic Dean’s Council, Provost Council, 548

President’s Council, and a Provost Forum. A system for offering both substantive and copy-editing-type 549

revisions needs to be established, perhaps through an on-line posting and comment feature. Work with 550

Communication and Marketing to establish appropriate advertising, announcements of these events, 551

and general explanation. Update the website.) 552

553

Student Learning Outcomes Auburn University: The APP Project – Draft for Discussion June 22, 2012

25

Student Learning Outcomes: 1

The APP Project has four primary student learning outcomes 2

developed from the institutional data and review of scholarship 3

on ePortfolios previously described. Each outcome can be broken 4

into multiple, measurable elements, though these measures will 5

not apply uniformly across all departments and programs. Indeed, 6

different programs will emphasize some outcomes and de-7

emphasize others. The APP Project invites participation in ways 8

that meet current capabilities and the objectives of individual 9

programs and/or departments while encouraging growth in the 10

learning outcomes that individual programs and/or departments 11

find initially more difficult to achieve. Based on the review of 12

research and best practices, on input from campus stakeholders, 13

and on the consultation with Dr. Kathleen Yancey, the outcomes 14

are separated into those that will be visible in the final APP and 15

those that are necessary to the completion of the ePortfolio. The 16

outcomes often overlap and specific elements will vary across 17

different disciplines. In the case of Technical Competency, for 18

example, the elements focus on general competence in the use of 19

technology without requiring specific tools or techniques. The 20

elements for Visual Literacy were developed in consultation with 21

faculty members in the Departments of Art, Graphic Design, 22

Architecture, Apparel Design, and Agricultural Communication. 23

Professor Gary Wagoner, Chair of the Art Department, 24

contributed definitions for the design elements and principles 25

provided in Sidebar 9. Reviewers of early drafts were encouraged 26

to examine these elements and principles carefully to see if they 27

were consistent with other visually-oriented disciplines. Figure 4 28

illustrates how the different outcomes are visible in an ePortfolio 29

from Louisiana State’s Communication Across the Curriculum 30

Program. 31

32

ARTIFACTS

Textual documents:

formal papers from classes;

research papers; summaries or

descriptions of non-course

experiences like internships, co-

ops, study abroad, alternative

spring break experiences, or co-

curricular activities; blogs; memos;

client reports; letters; creative texts

like poetry or short stories; liner

notes or museum guides to

accompany creative projects; etc.

Graphic documents:

visual insertions into written

documents – graphs, tables, charts,

illustrations; drawings to

accompany architectural plans or

design projects; photographs; video

or slide accompaniments to written

documents; websites, illustrations

of lab work, co-curricular projects,

research; etc.

Audio documents:

audio tapes of speeches,

performances, presentations;

narrated power points; interviews;

oral histories; oral reflections on

experiences or learning; etc.

Video documents:

video insertions into written

documents like blogs, or stand-

alone videos of presentations or

performances

Sidebar 6: Examples of Artifacts


26

33

34

35

36

37

38

39

40

41

42

43

44

45

46

47

48

49

50

51

52

53

Figure 4: Example of a Professional ePortfolio with APP Learning Outcomes identified http://dcomm.cxc.lsu.edu/portfolios/10spr/kramse6/index.html (Mixon and Smith 2011).


27

Reflection in an APP

An APP is not merely a collection of

prior assignments, but an

intentional selection of artifacts.

Reflection is thus a crucial feature

of an APP and may appear in short

narratives that explain or describe

the artifact, provide the context for

the experience, help readers

navigate between artifacts or

synthesize the evidence provided

in various documents for a career

objective statement or personal

philosophy.

Reflections on earlier experiences

may appear in blog postings or self-

assessments.

Reflection also occurs outside the

final product in process logs,

journals or blogs that are not made

public but that nonetheless

influence the message and design

of the final APP

Sidebar 8: Reflection in an APP

Audience

A range of audiences is inherent

in APPs as students communicate

to prospective employers and

translate their prior course

experiences for this new

purpose. Depending on the

major and the specific artifacts

included, ePortfolios may include

documents that address peers,

teachers, a public audience and

future employers.

Sidebar 7: Definition of Audience

Outcome 1: Effective Communication 54

Students will be effective communicators to a range of audiences, including those beyond the academic 55

community. They will demonstrate their ability to communicate through a variety of artifacts and the 56

multi-media form of the APP as an on-line website. 57

Elements of Outcome 1: 58

Visible in the final product of the APP: 59

1.1 Students will demonstrate their ability to communicate 60

effectively to an audience beyond the academic community 61

through a variety of artifacts. 62

a. If oral presentations are selected to convey a 63

message, students will exhibit their ability to craft and deliver 64

the information that is effective and appropriate for the 65

audience, purpose and situation. 66

b. If visual materials (like graphs, charts, 67

photographs, multi-media, etc.) are incorporated into 68

documents, students will demonstrate their ability to use these 69

visual materials to clearly 70

contribute to effective 71

communication while 72

following expectations 73

within their discipline. 74

1.2 Students will craft 75

different kinds of 76

documents using conventions expected of professionals in 77

their field. 78

1.3 Students will use language, including technical terms, 79

appropriate for the audience, purpose and genre. 80

Processes necessary in preparing the APP: 81

1.4 Students will seek and use feedback from others to revise 82

documents to include in their APP. 83

1.5 Students will understand how to work within different 84

rhetorical situations, that is, how different audiences 85

impact the construction, selection and arrangement of 86

documents. 87

Outcome 2: Critical Thinking through Reflection 88

Students will demonstrate critical thinking (see Sidebar 1 and 89

Sidebar 4 for definitions and background) by synthesizing their 90

learning and experiences across multiple courses and/or activities. 91


28

They will make an argument about their experiences, learning and abilities through a final web-based 92

product aimed toward a specific audience by selecting appropriate artifacts that illustrate those 93

experiences and by revising earlier artifacts as necessary for the APP’s audience. They will include 94

introductions or contextual explanations that frame these artifacts for the audience and create a 95

professional identity. 96



2.1 Students will select appropriate artifacts that illustrate their learning across multiple 99

experiences. 100

2.2 Students will illustrate connections between various documents, experiences, and projects by 101

composing short introductions and creating links between documents. 102

2.3 Students will synthesize their learning and experiences across multiple courses by selecting 103

representative artifacts and/or activities and arranging those artifacts in a manner that 104

illustrates the connections. 105

2.4 Students will craft a professional identity through the decisions they make about selection, 106

presentation and arrangement of artifacts. 107


2.5 Students will use reflection in evaluating their experiences, learning, and abilities through their 109

review of artifacts they have collected over the course of their academic careers. 110

2.6 Students will use reflection to make decisions about how to present their experiences within a 111

professional context. 112

Outcome 3: Technical competency 113

Students will use technology to produce an APP that is appropriate for a professional audience. They will 114

include a range of artifacts, choosing the best medium for presenting the material. 115



3.1 Students will demonstrate that they are competent with the technology tools (hardware and 118

software) necessary to create artifacts for the APP. 119

3.2 Students will use appropriate technology to embed and display artifacts appropriate to their 120

discipline and prospective careers to create a Web based APP. 121

3.3 Students will demonstrate, through the way they select and arrange artifacts, an understanding 122

of the uses/abuses and the limits/possibilities in the evolving nature of on-line conventions and 123

the differences between APPs and social networking sites. 124


3.4 Students will show proficiency with different technologies to produce and archive artifacts. 126

3.5 Students will make judgments about the appropriateness of the technologies they use in 127

creating an APP. 128


29

Design Elements and

Principles at Work in an APP

Color: harmony and contrast achieved

through hue, saturation, brightness.

Value: light and dark

Shape: simple and geometric (triangles,

circles) or complex and representational

or abstract

Space: organization of empty area

between shapes

Form: composition and structure of the

design to integrate elements into a unified

whole

Balance: equilibrium created with similar

emphasis of either side of an axis

Hierarchy: emphasis of some components

over others

Scale: relative size of design elements

Unity: integration and fluidity,

organization of elements to create an

effect

Dominance: central importance and

strong emphasis; creation of visual focus

Similarity: harmony and unity relying on

similarities and repetitions

Contrast: separation through variation of

value, color, shape:

Movement: lines, shapes, gradations that

carry the eye through the composition

Rhythm/Pattern: repetition, alternation,

ordering of motifs

Originality: fresh approach achieved

through inventiveness and exploration

Sidebar 9: Design Elements & Principles at Work in an APP

3.6 Students will test the accessibility of their APP in various operating systems and browsers and 129

resolve any technological difficulties that interfere with access to and/or display of the 130

ePortfolio. 131

Outcome 4: Visual literacy 132

Students will demonstrate an ability to construct documents 133

that combine visual materials of various kinds (charts, graphs, 134

photographs, drawings, etc.) with textual, graphic, and/or 135

audio or video documents and files. They will demonstrate an 136

understanding of how to use visual materials to effectively 137

communicate in electronic media as they construct the Web 138

based APP. 139



4.1 Students will demonstrate an understanding of design 142

principles as they select and arrange visual materials 143

to effectively communicate through a Web based APP. 144

4.2 Students will produce an APP with a navigational 145

design that readers can follow. 146

4.3 Students will demonstrate an understanding of design 147

conventions in the target profession and, where 148

necessary, acknowledge sources and secure 149

permission to use the specific visual materials they 150

include. 151

4.4 Students will demonstrate an ability to incorporate 152

effective and appropriate visual materials of various 153

kinds (charts, graphs, photographs, drawings, etc.) 154

into both artifacts and the design of the Web based 155

APP. 156


4.5 Students will make judgments about the visual 158

appearance and effectiveness of their APP for a 159

professional audience. 160

4.6 Students will understand how to work within different 161

rhetorical situations, that is, how different audiences 162

and purposes impact the selection and arrangement 163

of visuals. 164

Literature Review and Best Practices Auburn University: The APP Project – Draft for Discussion June 22, 2012

30

Literature Review and Best Practices: 1

Why ePortfolios 2

In the early 90s, when the term “e” was coined to categorize things as “electronic,” an “e” version of the 3

portfolio began to occur in academics. Where disciplines had traditionally used paper portfolios, the 4

transition was more or less natural. However, due to changes in post-secondary learning, as well as 5

curricular and accountability considerations, ePortfolios became and still are a growing and evolving 6

practice at many institutions. The growth of ePortfolios can be linked to four major catalysts: 7

ePortfolios answered the call for more student-centered pedagogical practices 8

ePortfolios focused on student reflection and synthesis across multiple disciplines and 9

experiences 10

ePortfolios pointed students toward thinking about life-long goals or to specifically connecting 11

their learning experiences to a real-world audience 12

ePortfolios responded to pressure from economic instability that demanded more overt links 13

between education and work-place skills. 14

Thus, the ePortfolio movement was aligned with educational trends occurring at the post-secondary 15

level (Clark and Eynon 2012). 16

The first three of these catalysts to growth are related to ePortfolios paralleling new pedagogical 17

approaches and the heightened interest in digital communication tools and technology. When other 18

“texts”—like documents, pictures, and music—became digitized, it became easier to imagine that 19

archiving materials should be online as well. And, as consumers of these digital texts began to 20

manipulate their arrangement and experiment with their own multi-media compositions, ePortfolios fit 21

the need for both a place to collect different kinds of artifacts and a vehicle to showcase the educational 22

and professional versions of these texts that composers created. Further, the ePortfolio provided an 23

academic or professional answer to digital identities that students so frequently invest in and engage 24

with in online social communities (Yancey 2009). 25

The last of the major reasons for the growth of ePortfolios stemmed from the pressure of economic 26

instability. Both the force of increased accountability within higher education and the desire for more 27

stable employment solidified the usefulness of ePortfolios for higher education. Responding to an 28

increased demand for accountability and evidence-based decisions about curriculum, pedagogy, and 29

program development, ePortfolios are often used to facilitate assessment. When students collected and 30

reflected on their work from their own educational experiences and assembled the results into an 31

ePortfolio, faculty were able to use this purposeful collection to derive a deeper understanding of 32

students’ learning experiences. At the same time, ePortfolios allowed students and programs to prepare 33

for the fluidity of the future by showcasing exemplary work to specific audiences like prospective 34

employers. With an emphasis on reflection, ePortfolios also offered a place for students to think about 35

multiple disciplines in one space, creating an argument or representation of themselves as a “whole 36

student” (Yancey 2009) with a life that extended beyond classroom instruction to encompass co-37


31

curricular experiences that shaped their identity, interests, and values. The influence of these four 38

cultural changes resulted in explosive ePortfolio growth. 39

Learning Associated with ePortfolios 40

The simple definition of an ePortfolio is an electronic collection of student work. However, there are 41

three definitions by which most ePortfolios at the higher education level are categorized: 1) a learning-42

based ePortfolio created to enhance metacognition and deep learning, 2) an assessment-based 43

ePortfolio used to evaluate student competencies, and 3) the showcase or professional ePortfolio built 44

to display student work specifically to an employer audience. Student ePortfolios may be composed of 45

components that fit more than one of these three categories, but these specific terms help educators 46

choose and explain their purposes for using ePortfolios when communicating with students (Clark and 47

Eynon 2012). As ePortfolios grew, the pedagogy associated with helping students create individual 48

artifacts and then assemble them in meaningful ways also grew. Early evidence that reflection was 49

essential to the critical thinking and decision making processes required to synthesize learning 50

experiences into a coherent package, to find connections between disparate activities or experiences, 51

and to reconsider and revise earlier artifacts for a new audience and purpose led to a three-word phrase 52

to describe the three most important practices in student creation of ePortfolios: “Collect, select, and 53

reflect” (Yancey 2009). This mantra of collect, select, reflect allowed educators to distinguish the 54

meaningful learning that occurs in the process and product of an ePortfolio from online databases or 55

“document dumps” where students simply stored their work. 56

Reflection has been repeatedly shown to be a key element of ePortfolios because of the ways it fosters 57

Figure 5: William R. Hart, AU Architecture & Design 2009


32

student learning and self-awareness (see Figure 5 for an example). In a study of what students valued in 58

the ePortfolio process required of first-year students at the University of Denver since 2007 (Campbell et 59

al. 2011) students reported that keeping the ePortfolio helped them achieve one or more of the learning 60

outcomes for the course. In addition, more than half said that the reflection process included in the 61

ePortfolio helped them develop as writers because it provided them with additional insights about their 62

strengths, weaknesses, and changes that had occurred in their writing over the course. Another 25% 63

indicated that reflection-as-presentation required as they introduced or contextualized artifacts in the 64

ePortfolio helped them see how the assignments were designed to teach the learning outcomes of the 65

course. Another study conducted by faculty in different disciplines (economics and business 66

administration, sociology, and consumer sciences) at Framingham State College (2009) hypothesized 67

that students using an ePortfolio to organize written work by cross-curricular skill would have an 68

increased awareness of these skills at the end of the process and be better able to assess their own 69

improvement in these skills than students who did not assemble an ePortfolio. Faculty review of the 70

ePortfolios noted several qualitative differences in the reflections between the two groups, including 71

that those who created an ePortfolio had a better awareness of audience and context compared to 72

those who did not complete an ePortfolio. Likewise, in a study by Acker et al. (2007) students reported 73

that they developed skills in defining and assessing their own learning artifacts, could trace their 74

individual development and growth across different courses and experiences, were able to draw 75

connections across and among different disciplines, and had assumed more responsibility for their own 76

learning and writing. 77

Though ePortfolios are often associated with meaningful learning experiences for students, research has 78

begun to establish the elements that make creating an ePortfolio valuable. A study at LaGuardia 79

Community College (2006) found that intensive faculty and student support is vital for ePortfolio 80

success, with strong correlations between increased support and increased impact of ePortfolio 81

processes. For example, faculty who engaged in a more sustained faculty development process related 82

to ePortfolios were more likely to increase student engagement in the ePortfolio assignments and 83

improved pass rates for the course compared to faculty who opted for more limited introduction and 84

support. Similarly, students who had support were more likely than students who only attended limited 85

workshops to report they enjoyed building their ePortfolios and valued ePortfolios as a tool for learning 86

about themselves and preparing for their future careers. It is also clear from a review of the research, 87

that there is a good deal of variety in how ePortfolios are introduced and supported. While some 88

programs will find it advantageous to develop new courses to achieve specific outcomes, others will 89

wish to modify existing courses or even to use courses offered by other programs. Alternatively, some 90

programs already offer courses and other experiences that meet the objectives. The critical point is that 91

flexibility is a very useful best practice in the design and implementation process of documenting 92

relevant learning outcomes (Kleeman 2008). 93

Scholarship and Best Practices Included in the APP Project 94

The implementation plan with this research, and that cited elsewhere in this document, in mind. All 95

central elements of the plan were informed by this scholarship, the review of the institutional 96


33

assessment data described earlier, consultations with colleagues at other institutions, and discussions 97

with faculty, students, and administrators at Auburn. Key principles involved in the APP Project include: 98

1. identify learning outcomes and embed those in the APP Project 99

2. focus on promoting student engagement in the learning that can occur in the process of 100

creating an APP 101

3. treat the APP as both a process and a product and develop support for faculty and students 102

for both 103

4. allow for flexibility in achieving the outcomes, but provide guidelines and models for faculty 104

and students 105

5. assess the project in multiple ways, monitor that data yearly, and make systemic 106

adjustments in response to faculty, student, and employer feedback and other assessment 107

data 108

6. encourage research connected to ePortfolios and student learning 109

Action Items Auburn University: The APP Project – Draft for Discussion June 22, 2012

34

Action Items: 1

The APP Project builds upon the Auburn University Writing Initiative and on support efforts that are 2

already in place. Therefore, most of the actions necessary for successful implementation center on: 1) 3

Developing the infrastructure necessary to support students, faculty, and programs; 2) Supporting 4

student learning through an expansion of existing support units and increased co-curricular activities like 5

workshops, inter-session courses and expanded on-line resources; and, 3) Supporting faculty in 6

developing and extending curriculum, mentoring students throughout the process of creating their 7

APPs, and connecting the APP Project to their teaching and research. The APP Project aims to support all 8

potential users, but focuses its efforts first on departments that wish to add professional ePortfolios to 9

their curriculum. Departmental development of ePortfolios fall into three different categories: majors 10

that already require a type of professional ePortfolio; majors that require paper portfolios or senior 11

projects but that are interested in moving those to be professional ePortfolios; and, majors that have no 12

requirement either paper or digital, but have expressed an interest in developing a professional 13

ePortfolio. Within these three broad stages there is considerable variation in the extent to which 14

curriculum supports the required final product. The level of support offered to students outside of 15

courses also varies significantly. In some cases, even where there is no current portfolio requirement, 16

course work throughout the major includes assignments that help students generate appropriate 17

artifacts or provide instruction relevant to ePortfolios. For example, many majors include instruction on 18

effective communication, critical thinking through reflection, technology, or visual literacy. Course 19

assignments may ask students to create blogs, design websites, or compose documents for a future 20

career. Even where programs are well on their way in using ePortfolios and have appropriate courses in 21

place to support the APP project, there may not be appropriate earlier opportunities to practice the 22

relevant skills. Likewise, though participation in the APP project does not necessarily require equal 23

attention to all four of the learning outcomes, these four learning outcomes provide a matrix for future 24

development. Thus, there is room for continued growth and refinement to strengthen existing efforts as 25

well as interest in adding ePortfolios where they do not currently exist. A list of the programs already 26

identified with their level of current development is included in Appendix E. 27

Description of action items 28

1. Create a Coordinating Council with broad based representation: Because so many existing units on 29

campus have missions that overlap with and support the APP Project, a Coordinating Council will 30

provide an opportunity for collaborative conversations and decision making. Keeping the project 31

connected to faculty through college representation will build awareness and support, and help the 32

Director and APP Coordinator (see descriptions of these positions) establish connections across the 33

university. However, the Council must balance broad inclusiveness with a small enough number of 34

members to be practical and efficient. 35

a) Membership: One faculty representative from colleges with a significant number of first-36

adopters, balancing membership to include departments that represent each of the levels of 37

development described above for a total of 9 faculty representatives. One unit representative 38

from each of the units impacted by the APP Project (Biggio Center for the Enhancement of 39


35

Teaching and Learning; Career Services; Instructional Media Group; Media and Digital Resource 40

Lab; Miller Writing Center, and Library Instruction) for a total of 6 unit representatives. 41

Committee will be chaired by the Director of University Writing with the APP Coordinator 42

serving as the recorder and co-chair (see item 2 below). Each faculty representative serves for 3 43

years beginning year 1 (2012-13), renewal possible. Establish a rotation system beginning year 3 44

(2015-16) so that roughly 1/3 of the members are replaced each year. Unit representatives are 45

on-going. 46

b) Charge: The APP Project Coordinating Council works with the Director of University Writing and 47

the APP Coordinator to implement the program. Major tasks include: publicize and promote the 48

APP Project to ensure on-going support and wide adoption; work out implementation details 49

such as final selection of software platforms; review assessment data compiled by the APP 50

Coordinator and make recommendations as necessary for expansion and use of resources; 51

participate in review of awards, incentives, and grant programs connected to ePortfolios; solicit 52

input from industry councils and advisory boards in various colleges and from prospective 53

employers through surveys and interviews; investigate and discuss the use of ePortfolios in 54

graduate admissions. 55

c) Dates: Appoint Coordinating Council members by September 2012 (year 1) to serve at least 56

through May 2016 with renewal possible. 57

2. Hire Coordinator for the APP Project: The APP Project builds on the work begun by the Office of 58

University Writing and is deeply connected to the curricular revisions to embed significant and 59

discipline-specific writing into every major that the Director of University Writing already oversees. The 60

project also requires coordination with other units like the Biggio Center for the Enhancement of 61

Teaching and Learning, Career Services, Instructional Media Group, Media and Digital Resource Lab, the 62

Instructional Library Program, and the Miller Writing Center, but will still need dedicated personnel to 63

manage assessment, advertising, and the logistics and content of faculty and student support. 64

a) Administrative structure: The Director of University Writing (hereafter Director) assumes 65

responsibility for overseeing the APP Project with additional people hired to support the project 66

including: the APP Coordinator, Information Technology Specialist, Instructional Technology 67

Specialist and student staff worker. Existing personnel in the Office of University Writing will 68

have some shifts in job responsibility to accommodate the project. See draft job descriptions 69

(Appendix F) and organizational chart (Appendix G). 70

b) Dates: Initial implementation will begin with academic year 2012-13 (year 1). Add student staff 71

worker to the Office of University Writing by September 2012. Formal appointment of the 72

Director of University Writing as Director of the APP Project will occur by December 2012. Hire 73

Coordinator and Information Technology Specialist by June 2013. Hire Instructional Technology 74

Specialist by June 2014 (year 2). 75

3. Expand existing units where APP will impact existing services: Units that offer support related to 76

ePortfolios for students and/or faculty will be impacted by the APP Project. Increased traffic, requests 77

for face-to-face or virtual support, expectations for workshops and on-line resources will require some 78

existing support units to expand their current operations. Depending on the level of involvement, units 79

will need to add additional positions or combine job responsibilities to ensure more efficient use of 80

resources. The APP Project is also an opportunity for these support units to coordinate their efforts. 81


36

Central to these efforts is the understanding that professional ePortfolios are not simply a final product, 82

but a set of interconnected practices that support student learning and deepen engagement. 83

a) Since several of these units provide support to students (Career Services, Media and Digital 84

Resource Lab, Library Instructional Program, Miller Writing Center), support to individual faculty 85

members (Biggio Center for the Enhancement of Teaching and Learning, Instructional Media 86

Group, Media and Digital Resource Lab, Office of University Writing) and/or support to 87

programs in designing or revising curriculum (Biggio Center for the Enhancement of Teaching 88

and Learning, Office of University Writing), it will be important to coordinate these support 89

efforts to avoid duplication or omission. The APP Coordinator, with the support of the Director, 90

is responsible for managing the contributions by different units and collecting data that will 91

inform decisions about where additional resources are needed each year of the project. It is the 92

Director’s responsibility to manage the budget to ensure appropriate distribution of resources 93

to ensure successful implementation and to work out cost sharing agreements where the 94

needed personnel will have other responsibilities not connected to the APP Project. 95

b) The APP Coordinator and the Director, in consultation with the Coordinating Committee, will 96

determine a schedule for appropriate workshops, symposia, classroom demonstrations, etc. 97

drawing upon the expertise that exists in these units. 98

c) Specific direct impacts, necessary resources identified by each unit, and costs for expansion 99

have been included in the budget (see Resources below and Appendix H: Detailed Budget). 100

d) Dates: Initial preparation for impact will begin in fall 2012 (year 1) as this final document is 101

circulated for review by the Auburn University community with support phased in over the life 102

of the project in conjunction with assessment data of usage of specific units and expansion in 103

the numbers of APP Project participants. 104

4. Work with identified interested faculty and departments to strengthen current efforts: One of the 105

reasons ePortfolios was selected as the QEP topic was that so many programs were already interested in 106

them yet facing difficulties because there was no infrastructure of support in place. Beginning with 107

those who are already interested will provide models for other programs or interested faculty to 108

imitate. An initial survey of interest identified likely participants (see Appendix E). As noted above, 109

departments are at different stages of developing professional ePortfolios and the curricular or co-110

curricular structures that support students in creating and collecting artifacts, learning technological 111

skills, developing the visual literacy necessary to assemble a professional ePortfolio, and practicing the 112

critical thinking skills of reflection as they synthesize and arrange artifacts for different purposes and 113

audiences. Initial implementation targets at least five different types of programs representing different 114

colleges and levels (beginning undergraduates, advanced undergraduates, professional programs, and 115

graduate students). Care will be taken to represent programs at different stages of development and 116

include those with and without external accreditation standards as well as those with and without a 117

history of portfolio use. Participants will be identified during the process of reviewing and soliciting 118

suggestions for the final implementation plan. 119


37

a) Identify those who are already requiring professional 120

ePortfolios as local experts who can offer workshops and 121

demonstrations for others. For example, three faculty 122

members involved in teaching the use and creation of 123

professional ePortfolios for Consumer Affairs presented 124

such a workshop for the College of Human Sciences and 125

invited members of the QEP Development Committee on 126

February 24, 2012. The APP Coordinator, working with 127

the Director and the Coordinating Council, will identify 128

local faculty experts who include those from disciplines 129

with a tradition of portfolios, curricula that focuses on 130

visual literacy, technological skills, or critical thinking 131

through reflection. 132

b) The Director will work with departments that require 133

professional ePortfolios to consider how the learning 134

outcomes identified for the APP project match the 135

departments’ other objectives. This curricular work is a 136

natural extension of the curricular work of Auburn’s 137

Writing Initiative. The Director and APP Coordinator will 138

help departments expand their courses and/or 139

assignments where necessary to include elements that 140

support the collection, selection, and reflection essential 141

to professional ePortfolios. 142

c) The Director will work with departments that require 143

professional ePortfolios or non-digital portfolios to 144

ensure that preliminary assignments, feedback, and other 145

instructional support exist within the program. The 146

Director and APP Coordinator will help departments and 147

faculty members expand or revise curriculum as 148

necessary. 149

d) The Director will work with departments that are 150

interested in developing professional ePortfolios but do 151

not currently have such a requirement to create a 152

comprehensive curricular plan to help students compose 153

appropriate artifacts, learn necessary skills and 154

technologies, practice synthesizing artifacts for specific 155

audiences and purposes, and produce a final professional 156

ePortfolio that includes attention to all four learning 157

outcomes, though those outcomes might not be equally 158

emphasized. The Director will enlist the support of the 159

APP Coordinator and the Instructional Technology 160

Specialist to support this work with faculty and departments. 161

Programs and Professional

ePortfolios

Professional Programs with

Standards Connected to

Professional ePortfolios:

Nursing – existing ePortfolio

requirement within a course

Pharmacy – ePortfolio

requirement coming and

assignments throughout

curriculum

Rehabilitation Services –

capstone course but no portfolio

currently in place

Programs with a tradition of

portfolios:

Consumer Affairs – ePortfolio

requirement and courses

Art – paper portfolio and senior

capstone course

Graphic Design – ePortfolio and

paper portfolio

Programs without a tradition of

portfolios and/or visual literacy:

Building Science – coming

ePortfolio requirement

Agronomy and Soils

Hospitality Management

Aerospace Engineering

English – new required paper

portfolio for Master’s student in

literature

Sidebar 10: Programs & Professional ePortfolios


38

e) Expand the Office of University Writing’s support to faculty to specifically focus on professional 162

ePortfolios and the curriculum that supports their creation. The APP Coordinator and Director 163

will work with the Coordinating Council and partner units to provide support to the faculty 164

members and/or departments who participate. 165

f) Invite experts to campus to deliver lectures and/or workshops on topics relevant to the learning 166

outcomes of the APP project. The APP Coordinator will handle the logistics for these visits with 167

support from the Administrative Associate for the Office of University Writing. The Coordinating 168

Council and faculty members participating in the APP Project will identify appropriate external 169

experts and suggest topics or formats for those visits. 170

g) Expand the Biggio Center for the Enhancement of Teaching and Learning’s Preparing Future 171

Faculty and New Faculty Scholars program to introduce ePortfolios and the four learning 172

outcomes to graduate student teachers and faculty new to Auburn. The Biggio Center for the 173

Enhancement of Teaching and Learning will assume responsibility for the delivery of this 174

addition with the help of other partners and the APP Coordinator. 175

h) The Director with the help of the APP Coordinator and the Instructional Technology Specialist 176

will oversee and contribute to the creation of appropriate web-based materials to support 177

faculty and departments (videos, assignment examples, etc.) 178

i) Expand the programs offered through Career Services and through individual college or 179

department industry advisory boards to solicit input from potential employers on the 180

components of effective professional ePortfolios in various fields. Design new or extend existing 181

programs to familiarize potential employers with the APP Project and ways to evaluate the 182

artifacts and skills on display in professional ePortfolios. 183

j) Dates: The Director will work with other units to identify and deliver appropriate workshops 184

providing an overview of professional ePortfolios and the learning outcomes associated with the 185

APP Project to target audiences in year 1 (2012-13). Discussions with interested departments on 186

the kinds of support they believe will be useful and necessary will also begin in year 1. By fall 187

2013 (year 2), the Director and APP Coordinator will establish workshops and begin producing 188

on-line resources to support programs that wish to revise or expand their current requirements 189

for professional ePortfolios as well as with those interested in beginning the APP project. For 190

those who are just beginning, a two-year build-up is expected before the first professional 191

ePortfolios are produced (begin fall 2013, first portfolios in spring 2015). 192

193

5. Identify software to be supported: Choosing which software will be supported by the university is 194

an important opportunity to build knowledge and establish collaboration. However, software, though 195

important, is not the most important feature of professional ePortfolios; still, without identified 196

supported software programs, many departments, faculty, and students will not elect to use ePortfolios. 197

More than one software program may be necessary to serve different kinds of programs and students, 198

and yet those charged with providing support to students or faculty cannot be expected to know the 199

fine points of all existing programs. An inclusive final selection process will identify 1-3 ePortfolio 200

packages that have university-wide support via Media and Digital Resource Lab and the Instructional 201

Media Group, but the selection and university-wide support will not prohibit colleges or departments 202


39

from adopting other portfolio packages if they feel it is necessary. Additional software for producing 203

digital documents of various kinds may also be necessary. 204

a. Identify necessary elements. An initial matrix of requirements for an ePortfolio package has 205

been created based on comparisons done by AAEEBL (see Appendix B). 206

b. Invite faculty and students to participate in the selection process through a series of 207

demonstrations, workshops, surveys, etc. Webinars on ePortfolio software possibilities have 208

been available to the Auburn Community since January 2012 and AU Daily was used to alert the 209

community to these webinars. 210

c. Coordinating Council will evaluate various software candidates using established criteria. 211

d. The APP Coordinator will manage negotiations with companies and ensure contracts are 212

finalized by working with Office of Information Technology, University Counsel and others as 213

necessary. 214

e. The APP Coordinator will work with other units to establish technology training workshops for 215

students and faculty. 216

f. Dates: Identify and test software using selection criteria in year 1(2012-13). Make final selection 217

and negotiate necessary contracts by fall year 2 (2013-14). Training workshops on the selected 218

software for ePortfolios begin for faculty summer 2014; for students by fall 2014. 219

220

6. Create appropriate multimedia support centers: Though many students are asked to do oral 221

presentations in courses and will want to include those in their portfolios, few classrooms have the 222

appropriate technology to capture presentations with enough quality that they could become a part 223

of a professional ePortfolio. Likewise, though some courses have students creating multimedia 224

projects, producing high-quality visual and audio artifacts requires equipment for lighting, sound 225

and visuals that are not sufficiently available to support broad adoption of professional ePortfolios. 226

Initial discussions with interested programs make it clear that some programs have specific needs 227

that will serve only their students and that all programs have some needs that are common enough 228

that those needs can and should be centrally supported. Creating spaces where students can 229

interact and peers can help each other is a crucial part of ensuring the success of the APP Project. 230

a. The APP Coordinator will compile an inventory of existing physical and virtual spaces on 231

campus for supporting multimedia production, editing, and reviewing. 232

b. The APP Coordinator, in consultation with the Coordinating Council, will work out 233

processes for supporting on-campus and distance students as well as faculty in using 234

these spaces. 235

c. The APP Coordinator will manage the creation of on-line tutorials that students and 236

faculty can access to learn specific technologies. 237

d. The Coordinating Council will establish a process for equipment or seed grants as an 238

incentive for colleges and/or departments to create multimedia support appropriate for 239

their majors, including both virtual and face-to-face support for users (see Appendix H: 240

Detailed Budget, line 6). The APP Coordinator and Director will oversee that process and 241

the awarding/monitoring of these grants with the Coordinating Council making the 242

decisions of which proposed projects to fund. Colleges and departments will be 243

expected to share the cost and allow students from outside their units to have access to 244


40

these spaces and equipment. The process and guidelines for equipment grants will 245

distinguish between equipment and spaces that should have already been created and 246

those which are necessary specifically to support the APP Project. The equipment grants 247

will encourage applicants to consider other resources available to support other 248

elements of ePortfolios like assessment grants, intramural research grants, and the 249

Biggio Center’s grants for enhancing teaching and learning. 250

e. Dates: Begin inventory investigation process in year 1 (2012-13) with equipment grants 251

available no later than May 2014 (year 2). 252

7. Advertise and recruit additional programs and individuals: If the Auburn Community does not 253

know what is going on with ePortfolios, those who have not already decided to do them are unlikely 254

to consider their value. Advertising and recruiting others will be essential to expand the project 255

beyond the initial group already identified. 256

a. The Director and APP Coordinator, in consultation with the Coordinating Council, will 257

work with Communications and Marketing to develop a comprehensive campaign 258

including printed materials (brochures, posters, bus signs) as well as electronic materials 259

(screen savers, website, AU Daily announcements). 260

b. Create appropriate events to demonstrate professional ePortfolios for students and 261

faculty, and to discuss with faculty curricular changes necessary to support ePortfolios. 262

c. Dates: Develop campaign in year 1 to launch by fall 2013 (year 2). Begin events for 263

students and faculty in year 1. 264

8. Communicate with the Auburn University Community: Keeping the Auburn Community informed 265

about the project is essential to ensuring its success and growth. 266

a. The APP Coordinator will spend considerable time each year of the project doing various 267

information sessions for faculty and students. The Director, working with the APP 268

Coordinator and the Coordinating Council, will provide regular status reports to various 269

leadership groups such as Provost’s Council, Academic Deans’ Council, President’s 270

Council, and University Senate. 271

b. Involve students in presenting professional ePortfolios to the Auburn Community in 272

special events, at career fairs, and at other appropriate workshops and events such as 273

Research Week, Advisory Board Meetings, Board of Trustee Meetings, etc. 274

c. Create internships and other opportunities for students to create materials that provide 275

support and information to students and faculty. The APP Coordinator will manage such 276

projects including interview videos, guidelines, and presentations, and make sure such 277

materials are available on-line. 278

d. Dates: Begin information sessions in year 1 (2012-13), add internships and appropriate 279

events by year 2 (2013-14). 280

9. Institute assessment components necessary to measure success and guide future decisions: 281

Assessment is essential for making future decisions about the project and guiding its 282

implementation. 283

a. The APP Coordinator and Director must oversee the assessment components identified 284

below beginning in year 1, present data to the Coordinating Council for discussion, and 285


41

forward recommendations for revision to Senior Leadership and/or the SACSCOC Liaison 286

Officer as necessary. 287

b. Dates: Collect initial assessment data beginning year 1 and throughout the project. 288

10. Institute awards and recognitions for exemplary professional ePortfolios: Recognition for 289

exemplary portfolios is an important incentive for students, especially as the expectation for a 290

professional ePortfolio becomes commonplace. Because exemplary professional ePortfolios require 291

considerable prior experience in composing individual artifacts, practice in synthesizing for a specific 292

audience and purpose, and considerable visual literacy and technical skills, programs that support 293

that learning process will also be recognized. 294

a. The Director and the APP Coordinator will work with the Coordinating Council to 295

develop criteria for selection and establish the submission and review process for both 296

individual awards for students and awards for programs/departments for exemplary 297

teaching. Both awards will be linked to learning outcomes and use winners to 298

demonstrate professional ePortfolio concepts to subsequent students. Encourage 299

participation by co-sponsoring awards with colleges. 300

b. The APP Coordinator will oversee marketing/advertising awards to students and 301

departments. 302

c. The Coordinating Council will be responsible for selecting winners using established 303

criteria. 304

d. The APP Coordinator and Director will arrange appropriate recognition of winners at 305

graduation or other appropriate public ceremonies. 306

e. Partner with the Alumni Association, Industry Advisory Boards, and other appropriate 307

groups to create sponsored prizes and other recognitions. 308

f. Dates: Develop criteria and process beginning in summer 2013 (year 1) with initial 309

awards given in May 2014 (year 2). 310

11. Provide incentives for faculty serving as mentors/advisors to individual students or groups of 311

students: Since some programs will not want to require professional ePortfolios but individual 312

students in those programs may still be interested in creating a professional ePortfolio, recruiting 313

and training faculty to be effective mentors will be an essential element to ensure that all who wish 314

to do so have the support necessary to produce an effective professional ePortfolio. Likewise, for 315

individual faculty whose courses become places for producing and collecting artifacts, synthesizing 316

experiences, or learning the visual literacy and technical skills required to produce an ePortfolio, 317

extra work is very likely. This work needs to be recognized, valued, and rewarded. 318

a. The Director, the APP Coordinator and the Coordinating Committee will develop 319

appropriate incentives and recognitions. Possibilities include: named professorships; 320

guidelines for recognizing quality work in tenure and promotion or merit review; 321

fellowships or stipends; teaching/mentoring awards. One or more existing awards 322

(Leischuck Award for Teaching Excellence, or the Shug Jordan Professor of Writing, for 323

example) might also include recognition of work associated with ePortfolios. 324

b. Work with the Provost and Deans to consider ePortfolio work in tenure, promotion and 325

merit review. Provide appropriate guidelines for evaluating the quality of such work. 326


42

c. Create categories in Digital Measures, the database that records faculty achievements, 327

to capture data about faculty involvement in the APP Project or components within 328

courses that contribute to students’ opportunities to learn and practice the learning 329

outcomes and collect, select, or reflect on artifacts. 330

d. Dates: Use assessment data and discussions with early adopters to guide 331

implementation of appropriate incentives beginning in 2013-14 (year 2). 332

12. Engage faculty in research and scholarship that connects their interests to their work with 333

ePortfolios: As a Research University, Auburn will need to become connected to the Inter/National 334

Coalition of Electronic Portfolios Research, the leading organization for scholarship about 335

ePortfolios. In undertaking this project, Auburn will also prepare to contribute to the knowledge 336

about ePortfolios’ connection to student learning, and connect that research to the interests of 337

individual faculty and programs. 338

a. Fund travel to appropriate conferences. The Coordinating Council, Director, and APP 339

Coordinator will identify and advertise appropriate conferences, establish procedures 340

for faculty and students to request funding support, and encourage those who attend 341

conferences to share what they’ve learned with the Auburn University community. The 342

Director, APP Coordinator, and other administrators will be expected to attend 343

appropriate conferences and participate in the broader national conversation about 344

ePortfolios. 345

b. Auburn University will submit a proposal to join a cohort group with the Inter/National 346

Coalition of Electronic Portfolio Research. 347

c. The APP Coordinator and the Director will oversee and contribute to the development 348

of modules connected to ePortfolio learning outcomes that can be adapted to REU’s or 349

other grant applications. 350

d. Dates: Conference participation can begin in 2012 (year 1) and continue throughout the 351

project. Begin conversations about the Inter/national Coalition of Electronic Portfolio 352

Research with the Coordinating Committee in 2014-15 (year 3) and prepare to apply to 353

the Coalition with a specific research project by 2015-16 (year 4). Have modules ready 354

to pilot with selected grant applicants by year 4. 355

Correlation of Action Items to Student Learning Outcomes 356

While each of the 12 categories of action items detailed above are targeted to address needs of 357

students, faculty, and departments, and each is meant to develop structures necessary to sustain the 358

APP Project, each of these actions also support the learning outcomes and the various specific elements 359

of these outcomes that have been identified. This section describes in more detail the ways that the 360

various audiences and stages of development will be supported to ensure that learning outcomes are 361

achieved, and how these new ePortfolio activities build on and expand the writing initiative and the 362

services provided by relevant units. Though faculty need support to consider changes in curriculum that 363

are appropriate to their learning objectives and students need support as they move through curricular 364

experiences, building or modifying curriculum builds the intellectual infrastructure that supports 365

professional ePortfolios. 366

http://ncepr.org/

http://ncepr.org/


43

For faculty, students or programs with no prior ePortfolio requirement 367

Those programs with no prior ePortfolio requirement that choose to participate in the APP Project will 368

need to consider how to implement the professional ePortfolios in relation to other curricular 369

objectives. Most programs will need to introduce ePortfolios, provide opportunities for students to 370

practice creating artifacts, and ensure that students have multiple opportunities to practice assembling 371

those artifacts into ePortfolios. Individual faculty will need to revise their assignments to include a 372

variety of opportunities to create appropriate artifacts and/or learn various skills associated with 373

ePortfolios, but a programmatic approach will be more coherent and should be encouraged for those 374

who are starting without existing elements already in place. Eight activities for this beginning stage have 375

been identified. 376

1. Provide opportunities for students to create 377

artifacts and save them in an electronic archive. 378

Though all of the writing plans developed by 379

programs for the Auburn Writing Initiative included 380

students creating different kinds of written 381

documents, few specifically mentioned archiving 382

these documents electronically. Some courses are 383

already requiring electronic documents like blogs, 384

websites, and multi-media texts, but most courses 385

do not overtly instruct students about how to 386

organize or store different kinds of products for 387

later use. Programs with no current requirement 388

but an interest in developing ePortfolios will need 389

to identify specific moments in their curriculum 390

where they can provide such instruction or co-391

curricular structures like advising, learning 392

communities, or student organizations where such strategies can be taught. 393

Action Items Involved: 3 (expand support), 4 (work with faculty), 5 (identify software), 6 (create 394

multi-media centers), 11 (support faculty mentors) 395

Learning Outcomes Supported: Effective Communication, Critical Thinking, Technical 396

Competence, Visual Literacy 397

2. Expand the range of audiences students write for and ensure they understand how audience 398

expectations can alter the final form of an artifact, whether the form is written, oral, visual, or 399

multi-media. All writing plans included multiple audiences and most departments were able to 400

identify both academic and non-academic audiences appropriate for the careers students enter 401

upon graduation. However, many departments misunderstood the distinction between 402

intended audience and the immediate reader of the final product. Likewise, though different 403

kinds of writing were required in the writing plans developed in Auburn’s Writing Initiative’s 404

initial implementation, there was no requirement that students had to be asked to move 405

between written, oral, visual, and/or multi-media formats or to be conscious of the 406

interrelationship between audience, form, and purpose. Careful attention to these issues will 407

Case Study

The Interdisciplinary University Studies

major includes an initial exposure to

document archiving in their gateway

course. However, they have not had a

platform appropriate for expanding this

introduction to support a Professional

ePortfolio, and have only recently taken

steps to require students to submit

senior capstone projects to the document

archive. While document collection is

important, the APP Project requires

more than mere collection.

Sidebar 11: Case Study

https://fp.auburn.edu/writing/constructingPlan.aspx


44

strengthen the writing experiences of all students, but are essential if students are to produce 408

professional ePortfolios. 409

Action Items Involved: 3 (expand support), 4 (work with faculty), 5 (identify software) , 6 410

(create multi-media centers), 10 (create awards), 11 (support faculty mentors) 411



3. Expand the form students use to communicate to include 414

oral, visual, and/or multi-media documents as well as 415

the many genres of written documents. Though some 416

writing plans included oral, visual, and/or multi-media 417

documents, there was no requirement that they do so. 418

Ensuring that students have a variety of artifacts to draw 419

upon to produce a professional ePortfolio will involve 420

some reconsideration of curricular and co-curricular 421

experiences and the opportunities students have to 422

practice producing artifacts in different media. 423

Action Items Involved: 3 (expand support), 4 (work with 424

faculty), 5 (identify software) , 6 (create multi-media 425

centers), 10 (create awards), 11 (support faculty mentors) 426

Learning Outcomes Supported: Effective Communication, 427

Technical Competence, Visual Literacy 428

4. Enhance students’ ability to seek out and use feedback 429

from others to revise documents for different forms, 430

audiences or purposes. Feedback and opportunities to 431

revise were required of all undergraduate programs 432

developing writing plans. However, peer review is 433

unequally utilized across different programs or even 434

across different courses. Rubrics that clearly outline 435

expectations are similarly unequally developed, and how 436

students are meant to use instructor comments to revise 437

a text is rarely explicitly taught. Few writing plans included 438

assignments that asked students to revise by using 439

different forms, or by altering the audience or purpose. 440

Such expansion of assignments and practice will prepare 441

students with a better understanding of the elements of 442

effective communication and enable them to assemble a 443

professional ePortfolio from their archive of artifacts. 444

Action Items Involved: 3 (expand support), 4 (work with 445

faculty), 5 (identify software) , 6 (create multi-media 446

centers), 10 (create awards), 11 (support faculty mentors) 447

Learning Outcomes Supported: Effective Communication, 448

Suggestions and Possibilities

For students who wish to complete

a Professional ePortfolio even if

their major does not require it,

introductions to archiving their

work can be provided through

such mechanisms as stand-alone

workshops delivered by the Miller

Writing Center, the Library’s

Instructional Program, or Career

Services. Short in-class

demonstrations will also be

developed by these units for

presentations in learning

communities, first-year

composition, UNIV courses, Camp

War Eagle, orientation programs,

residence life, or clubs and

organization programs.

Linking the support for writing

instruction provided to faculty and

students to the creation of

Professional ePortfolios will help

departments, faculty and students

be positioned to adopt

Professional ePortfolios even if

they are not currently interested in

doing so. Including advisors and

co-curricular personnel in

workshops will provide an

additional layer of potential

support to students outside the

curriculum.

Sidebar 12: Suggestions & Possibilities


45

Critical Thinking, Technical Competence, Visual Literacy 449

5. Improve students’ ability to choose language and 450

conventions appropriate for the audience, purpose and genre 451

and to control those conventions throughout the text to 452

maximize the effectiveness of their communication. Because the 453

writing plans did not explicitly require programs to attend to the 454

impact of shifting audience, purpose, or form, more attention is 455

needed to these elements in order to ensure that students can 456

choose appropriate language and convention and maintain the 457

consistency of their choice throughout the text. Likewise, there is 458

no explicit requirement in the Writing Initiative that students be 459

given experiences where they can develop an awareness of the 460

effectiveness of their products for a specific situation. 461

Action Items Involved: 3 (expand support), 4 (work with faculty), 462

5 (identify software) , 6 (create multi-media centers), 10 (create 463

awards), 11 (support faculty mentors) 464

Learning Outcomes Supported: Effective Communication, Visual 465

Literacy 466

6. Provide opportunities for students to construct web-467

based portfolios that combine different kinds of documents for 468

different purposes or audiences. In order to construct a 469

professional ePortfolio, students need to have opportunities to 470

practice creating similar portfolios early in their career. Such 471

portfolios can be used for applications for internships or 472

scholarships. Opportunities to compose websites to reconsider 473

learning within a single course or across courses will also let 474

students reflect on their experiences, synthesize concepts, and 475

reconsider their own role in the learning process. 476

Action Items Involved: 3 (expand support), 4 (work with faculty), 477

5 (identify software) , 6 (create multi-media centers), 10 (create 478

awards), 11 (support faculty mentors) 479

Learning Outcomes Supported: Effective Communication, Critical 480

Thinking, Technical Competence, Visual Literacy 481

7. Incorporate reflection and synthesis into course assignments. Though many courses include 482

reflective type assignments, there is little attention to how the term “reflection” varies across 483

different courses or how the expectation for synthesis and critical assessment is explained to 484

students. Workshops that encourage faculty to think more critically about reflection and how 485

best to promote the critical thinking that is associated with reflection will be necessary. 486

Similarly, workshops or in-class activities that make the critical thinking aspects of reflection 487

more explicit to students will be important additions. Reflection and critical thinking are topics 488

that external experts can be asked to address in lectures or workshops. 489

More Suggestions and

Possibilities

Departments that want to

implement professional ePortfolios

can craft preliminary moments

within their curriculum for

instruction and practice.

Individual faculty members can use

end-of-course portfolio projects as

an alternative to final examinations.

Students in majors that are not

requiring a professional ePortfolio

can work with mentors or advisors

to compile preliminary portfolios at

the end of each academic year or

appropriate milestone moments.

Co-curricular units will be

encouraged to consider adopting

ePortfolios for existing applications,

awards, or other activities.

Such experiences also allow students

to practice using the technology and

experiment with the elements of

effective communication and visual

literacy.

Sidebar 13: Suggestions & Possibilities Continued


46

Action Items Involved: 3 (expand support), 4 (work with faculty), 6 (create multi-media centers) 490

Learning Outcomes Supported: Effective Communication, Critical Thinking 491

8. Promote technical competence and visual literacy through contests, awards, and local 492

exhibitions and fairs. Providing occasions for students to showcase portfolios of various kinds 493

allows the entire campus community to develop the critical judgment, language for evaluation, 494

and common understanding of what constitutes effectiveness and competence. 495

Action Items Involved: 3 (expand support), 4 (work with faculty), 10 (create awards) 496

Learning Outcomes Supported: Effective Communication, Technical Competence, Visual 497

Literacy 498

For those with a non-digital portfolio requirement 499

Many of the activities outlined above may be needed even if a department currently requires a non-500

digital portfolio. In addition, such programs, faculty, and students will need to focus on the elements 501

that make paper portfolios and digital portfolios different. Three areas for such work have been 502

identified. 503

1. Ensure that students can manage the technology required to transform print documents into 504

digital forms. Workshops for departments, faculty, and students on specific media will be 505

offered through the Media and Digital Resource Lab, Career Services, and Instructional Media 506

Group. On-line tutorials and models will provide support outside the curriculum. 507


(create multi-media centers) 509

Learning Outcomes Supported: Technical Competence 510

2. Ensure that students understand the difference in organizational possibilities between a linear 511

paper portfolio and the more fluid, reader-chosen structure of a website-based portfolio. 512

Workshops and on-line materials for programs, faculty, and students will identify elements of 513

effective professional ePortfolios and suggest ways to revise different kinds of documents to 514

meet those criteria. The Miller Writing Center will expand its services to include peer 515

consultations on documents in various formats. The Media and Digital Resource Lab will add 516

peer consultants knowledgeable about oral production, visual literacy, and technology. 517



Learning Outcomes Supported: Effective Communication, Technical Competence, Visual 520

Literacy 521

3. Ensure students are aware of, can anticipate and compensate for the differences in 522

effectiveness for readers who access the digital portfolio in different ways. Workshops and on-523

line materials for programs, faculty, and students will demonstrate alternatives and provide 524

opportunities to experiment with different strategies. 525






47

For those with a digital portfolio requirement 530

Those departments which already have a digital portfolio requirement are, in many ways, the furthest 531

along, but because those requirements were established for other purposes, departments will need to 532

engage in careful reconsideration of curricular infrastructure. Some departments with such a 533

requirement will need to make adjustments that include attention to the elements outlined for each of 534

the groups above. Two additional areas that will need attention in programs that already have a digital 535

portfolio requirement are: 536

1. Ensure that learning outcomes for the current ePortfolio requirement include the learning 537

outcomes associated with the APP Project. Adjust curriculum as necessary to include the 538

missing elements. Though departments can choose to emphasize the learning outcomes 539

associated with the APP Project in different ways and not all of the specific elements associated 540

with each learning outcomes are required for departments or individuals to be a part of the APP 541

Project, resource allocation and assessment will be more consistent if all participants consider 542

how the learning outcomes apply in their discipline. 543

Action Items Involved: 3 (expand support), 4 (work with faculty), 6 (create multi-media 544

centers), 9 (add assessment components), 10 (create awards), 12 (connect to research) 545



2. Ensure that the assessment of current ePortfolios is appropriate to the assessment of APPs. 548

Where departments or individuals are using ePortfolios that are not structured as professional 549

ePortfolios, some adjustments to the assessment of those ePortfolios will probably be 550

necessary. Other kinds of ePortfolios might still be used, and a department might choose to 551

continue to assess these for their own purposes, but attention to the specific demands of an 552

APP in terms of audience and purpose will likely necessitate some revisions to the assessment 553

process and criteria. 554

Action Items Involved: 4 (work with faculty), 9 (add assessment components), 10 (create 555

awards), 12 (connect to research) 556



Time Line Auburn University: The APP Project – Draft for Discussion June 22, 2012

48

Time Line 1

The time line below is focused on implementation. Timelines for allocation of budget resources and 2

assessment are included in those sections below. 3

Year 1 (2012-13): Preparation Establish coordinating council Advertise for and hire APP Coordinator Advertise for and hire IT Specialist for QEP/Office of University Writing Advertise for and hire other essential personnel not dependent on growth of program Complete ePortfolio inventory of departments Develop initial workshops for faculty and students Establish process for review and selection of software packages Develop marketing plan with Communication and Marketing Hold events to recruit year 2 participants Collect base line data for assessment through existing reporting structures Discuss faculty incentives with first adopters

Action items 1 2 2 3 4 4 5 7 7,8 9 11

Year 2 (2013-14): Establish Infrastructure and pilot with existing departments Work with first adopters and collect examples/models Collect data for assessment on initial APPs Develop resources for students and faculty Coordinate ePortfolios with writing plans and writing assessment Offer workshops for faculty and students Select software program(s) and finalize contracts if necessary Expand resources and support through Media and Digital Resource Lab and establish

multi-media centers Establish, solicit, and select first equipment grants Launch marketing plan Do assessment and plan adjustments Develop criteria for student and faculty awards Encourage faculty participation in appropriate conferences

Action items 4 4 4 4 4 5 6 6 7, 8 9 10 12

Year 3 (2014-15): Expand participation Hold workshops to develop appropriate curriculum to support new adopters Invite appropriate guest speakers/consultants for presentations Recruit new programs to participate in APP Project Continue assessment and review data to make additional adjustments Make first awards for excellence for student portfolios and faculty participation Recruit and train faculty mentors for students in majors that don’t support ePortfolios Begin identifying faculty interested in participating in research

Action items 4 4 7 9 10 11 12

Time Line Auburn University: The APP Project – Draft for Discussion June 22, 2012

49

Year 4 (2015-16): Expand and deepen participation First year for 1/3 of faculty representatives on Coordinating Council to rotate off Add Instructional Specialist and other personnel if participation justifies addition Expand personnel in supporting units if numbers justify expansion Expand workshops for students and faculty Recruit additional program participants Use assessment data to strengthen curricular and instructional efforts Continue assessment and review Recruit faculty for research project and prepare proposal Identify and support faculty presentations at appropriate conferences/publications

Action Items 1 2 3 4 7 9 9 12 12

Year 5 (2016-17): Expand, deepen, and broaden participation Continue to expand workshops for students and faulty Continue to recruit additional program participants Continue to use assessment data to strengthen curricular and instructional efforts Apply for Inter/national Consortium for Research on ePortfolios Continue to identify and support faculty presentations at appropriate conferences

Action Items 4 7 9 12 12

Year 6 (2017-18): Expand, deepen, broaden, and report Continue to expand workshops for students and faulty Continue to recruit additional program participants Prepare QEP report for SACSCOC Continue to use assessment data to strengthen curricular and instructional efforts Continue to identify and support faculty presentations at appropriate conferences Continue participation in research project

Action Items 4 7 8 9 12 12

1

Organizational Structure Auburn University: The APP Project – Draft for Discussion June 22, 2012

50

Organizational Structure: 1

Several organizational structures were considered and structures for implementing a QEP and/or an 2

ePortfolio project at other institutions were investigated. Various organizational structures for the 3

different units that will be involved in implementing the APP Project were studied. Because the APP 4

Project builds on Auburn’s Writing Initiative, the decision was made to place the project within the 5

Office of University Writing to avoid duplication of efforts and conserve resources. Though the project 6

will need a dedicated APP Coordinator, it fits within the responsibilities of the Director of University 7

Writing. The impact of the APP Project on other units was also considered once the primary 8

implementation responsibilities were assigned to the Director of University Writing. (see Appendix G for 9

diagram) 10

Director of University Writing: 11

Oversee QEP implementation. Continue to work with faculty and departments on embedding significant 12

writing experiences, broadly defined, in the major. For many departments, APPs will be a natural 13

addition or have already been planned in their approved writing plans. For others, adding professional 14

ePortfolios will support their efforts to embed significant writing relevant to the major across the 15

program’s curriculum. In either case, the Director will work with faculty to develop appropriate 16

assignments, rubrics, and a deeper understanding of writing pedagogy appropriate for their discipline. 17

APP Project Coordinator: 18

An NTT position to manage day-to-day implementation tasks, coordinate assessment, and manage 19

logistical coordination with other units offering support to students and faculty. Job descriptions for 20

similar positions at other institutions were collected and a draft for the Auburn APP Project Coordinator 21

was written to parallel similar positions already in existence at Auburn, for example, the Coordinator for 22

the Miller Writing Center. In order to implement the APP Project, a search committee will be appointed 23

in fall 2012 with a target start date of June 1, 2013. See Appendix F for the draft job description and 24

Appendix H, line 2 for the budget allocation for this position. 25

Intern or GA Assistant to the APP Coordinator: 26

A .5 (20 hours per week) graduate assistant position to assist the APP Coordinator with all APP Project-27

related events and implementation tasks. This position has been budgeted to be similar to other 28

graduate assistantships associated with the Office of University Writing. (See Appendix H line 2). 29

Student Employee(s) for Staff Support: 30

20 hours/ week receptionist-type student employee. With increased traffic through the Office of 31

University Writing and additional budget responsibilities, the current Office of University Writing 32

Administrative Associate will need help with other tasks. 33

Information Technology Specialist: 34

Supports the work of the Office of University Writing and the APP Project; manages and designs website, 35

designs or administers system to automate the writing plan review process, works with students to 36

Organizational Structure Auburn University: The APP Project – Draft for Discussion June 22, 2012

51

expand the video resource library to serve students and faculty, ensures website resources are 37

accessible through different platforms, compiles data for assessment, ensures appropriate support for 38

distance courses; coordinates technology elements with Office of Information Technology and other 39

units. 40

Instructional Technology Specialist: 41

NTT position with pedagogical and technology expertise; provides direct support to faculty in 42

incorporating components of ePortfolios into courses; coordinates with Instructional Media Group, 43

Biggio Distance Component, Media and Digital Resource Lab, and the Office of University Writing. 44

Resources Auburn University: The APP Project – Draft for Discussion June 22, 2012

52

Resources: 1

Auburn University is committed to providing the necessary resources to successfully implement the QEP. 2

To support the implementation of the 12 action items set out above, the following resources are 3

required to develop the infrastructure necessary for success: 4

Provide Sufficient Space to Accommodate Implementation of the QEP 5

The APP Project will be administered through the Office of University Writing. The Office of University 6

Writing is currently located on the third floor of the Ralph Brown Draughon (RBD) Library. This space 7

provides approximately 1050 square feet of space and provides the following accommodation: 8

Dedicated office with small meeting area for Director of the Office of University Writing 9

Dedicated office with small meeting area for the Coordinator for the Miller Writing Center 10

Open reception are with dedicated desk space for Staff Associate 11

Conference room that seats eight 12

Kitchen/Storage Space 13

Reception area 14

The Office of University Writing also employs both graduate teaching and research assistants who work 15

either in the reception area or the conference room when it is not in use. There is currently no 16

dedicated space for graduate students to work. 17

To administer the APP Project within the Office of University Writing approximately 1500 square feet of 18

additional space is required to accommodate the following: 19

Dedicated office with small meeting area for APP Coordinator 20

Dedicated office for the Information Technology Specialist 21

Space for future addition of an Instructional Technology Specialist 22

Dedicated workspace for graduate assistants and undergraduate interns 23

Larger conference room 24

Classroom space 25

Additional storage space 26

The Director of University Writing and the chair of the QEP Development Committee met with the 27

Director of Campus Planning to discuss space requirements to accommodate the additional space 28

requirements. The Director of Campus Planning……(Add text after space has been identified). 29

Budget to Support Implementation of Action Items 30

Auburn University has allocated approximately $500,000 in continuing dollars annually to support the 31

implementation of the APP Project and the student learning outcomes associated with the project. The 32

12 action items set out above will require significant funds to: provide the space to accommodate the 33

professional ePortfolio project within Office of University Writing; hire new faculty, staff, graduate 34

students, and student workers; develop IT support; expand existing support units that contribute to the 35

APP Project; provide workshops for faculty and staff; market the program; provide awards and grants; 36

Resources Auburn University: The APP Project – Draft for Discussion June 22, 2012

53

develop research connected to ePortfolios; and assess and evaluate the project. Appendix H sets out the 37

detailed budget required for supporting the 12 action items but the annual expected expenditures are 38

set out in the table below. 39

Annual Expenditures for the APP Project

2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017

Annual Budget $161,258 $494,086 $509,616 $503,616 $481,116 $481,116

1

1

Assessment Auburn University: The APP Project – Draft for Discussion June 22, 2012

54

Assessment 1

Auburn University has used systematic assessment to inform curricular and institutional decisions for 2

some time. In developing the implementation plan for the APP Project, the Development Committee 3

sought to: 4

Develop a systematic approach to meaningful data collection and assessment by: 5

o avoiding duplication with the existing assessment processes and instead collect 6

information relevant to the identified professional ePortfolio learning outcomes through 7

these existing instruments where possible 8

o separating assessment of the student learning outcomes from assessment of the 9

impact of the APP Project 10

o including multiple measures 11

o collecting data systematically over time 12

o including data from all stakeholders 13

o using data to inform continuous improvement at all levels – student, faculty, 14

departments, support units, and the program administration 15

Focus on relevance at the department level by: 16

o keeping assessment of student portfolios in the departments where faculty reviewers 17

will have the best knowledge of the expectations of their disciplines and of future 18

employers their students are most likely to encounter 19

o allowing for flexibility in the kinds and numbers of artifacts assembled in professional 20

ePortfolios in order to reflect disciplinary expectations 21

o asking departments to focus their assessments on the professional ePortfolio even 22

though some early adopters will begin with preliminary assignments that generate 23

artifacts or provide opportunities to practice skills and may not have students 24

completing the professional ePortfolio for several years 25

Outlined below are: 1) the activities necessary for the assessment of the identified learning outcomes, 26

and 2) the activities necessary for the assessment of the impact of the APP Project. 27

Assessment of Student Learning Outcomes 28

The four learning outcomes are: effective communication, critical thinking through reflection, technical 29

competency, and visual literacy. The student learning outcomes listed under each learning outcome are 30

examples of how departments or courses can work toward the larger learning outcome. To participate 31

in the APP Project faculty members do not have to include all of the elements under any specific 32

outcome, nor do they necessarily have to work on all outcomes simultaneously or equally. Professional 33

ePortfolios will reflect these four learning outcomes, however, even though the specific elements that 34

are appropriate and reasonable will vary from program to program. The APP assessment plan allows 35

different levels of assessment at different levels of the institution – from specific courses, through 36

program or departmental review, to oversight committees for specific aspects of the curriculum, and 37


55

finally to the administrators responsible for monitoring and reporting on the project as an initiative 38

designed to enhance student learning. 39

The following chart provides an overview of the assessment methods for each of these learning 40

outcomes, how often those assessments occur, and who is responsible for them. The chart also 41

separates the outcome into those that will be visible in the APP itself (the product) and those that are 42

necessary for success but occur in preparatory experiences or earlier reiterations (the process). 43

44


56

APP Assessment Activities of Student Learning Outcomes 45

Assessment Level: Direct (darker colors) Indirect (lighter colors) no assessment (white) 46 Responsible Units: CI: Course Instructors; DL: Department Leadership; Col: College Leadership; OIRA: Office of Institutional Research; CCC: Core Curriculum 47 and General Education Committee; UWC: University Writing Committee; ePCC: ePortfolio Coordinating Council; UAC: University Assessment Council 48

APP Assessment Activities

Departmental

Activity College Activity Institutional Activity National

APP Student Learning Outcomes

Co

urs

e E

mb

ed

de

d

De

pa

rtm

en

tal

Pro

fessio

nal

eP

ort

folio

As

se

ssm

en

t

Gra

du

ati

on

Su

rvey/E

xit

In

terv

iew

Alu

mn

i S

urv

ey

s

Em

plo

yer

Su

rve

ys/

Ind

ustr

y A

dvis

ory

Bo

ard

s

Co

re C

urr

icu

lum

As

se

ssm

en

t

AU

Pro

gra

m

As

se

ssm

en

t

Exem

pla

ry P

ort

folio

Aw

ard

s

Wri

tin

g P

lan

As

se

ssm

en

t

CC

SW

NS

SE

1. E

ffecti

ve C

om

mu

nic

ati

on

Vis

ible

in

Pro

du

ct

1.1 variety

1.1a oral presentations

1.1b visuals within documents

1.2 conventions

1.3 language

Pro

cess

1.4 revision

1.5 different rhetorical situations

2. C

riti

cal

Th

inkin

g t

hro

ug

h

Re

fle

cti

on

Vis

ible

in

Pro

du

ct

2.1 selection

2.2 connection

2.3 synthesis

2.4 professional identity

Pro

cess

2.5 use reflection to evaluate

2.6 make decisions

3. T

ech

nic

al

Co

mp

ete

nc

y

Vis

ible

in

Pro

du

ct

3.1 use technology to create artifacts

3.2 web-based portfolio 3.3 understand limits and possibilities

Pro

cess

3.4 use different technologies

3.5 make judgments 3.6 test and resolve technological problems

4. V

isu

al L

itera

cy

Vis

ible

in

Pro

du

ct

4.1 use design principles

4.2 include coherent navigation

4.3 follow design conventions

4.4 include variety of visual materials

Pro

cess

4.5 make judgments 4.6 work with different rhetorical situations

Responsible Unit(s) CI DL DL; Col; OIRA

DL; Col; OIRA

DL; Col; OIRA

DL; Col; CCC

DL; Col; OIRA; UAC

ePCC DL; UWC OIRA OIRA

Frequency Each Term

Annual Annual Varies by Col

Varies by Col

Annual Annual Annual from year 3

Annual Year 4 Annual


57

Description of Assessment Activities 49

Though implementation of the professional ePortfolio will vary depending on the stage of development 50

of the department (see description above), the APP Project Coordinator will be able to compile data on 51

student learning outcomes and determine the degree of progress for each of the learning outcomes 52

using a number of existing instruments, modified to incorporate the learning outcomes of the APP 53

Project. 54

Departmental Activities: 55

Faculty in departments are in the best 56

position to do direct assessment of APPs 57

from students in their programs. Direct 58

assessment will happen either: 1) by 59

course instructors when the APP is 60

compiled, skills are practiced, or artifacts 61

are created in a course; and/or 2) by 62

departmental committees when the APP is 63

compiled outside of courses or submitted 64

as part of a graduation requirement for 65

that program/department. 66

Course Embedded Assessment 67

Activities: 68

Whether a course is a senior capstone 69

project, a component of a first year 70

learning community, or occurs elsewhere 71

in the curriculum, the course instructor is 72

best situated to determine whether the 73

student has demonstrated specific learning 74

outcomes. Likewise, it is the course 75

instructor who can determine whether an 76

assignment provides an opportunity to 77

create an artifact or practice skills like 78

reflection that are essential to creating a 79

professional ePortfolio at a later date. 80

Figure 6 illustrates a form for identifying 81

the learning outcomes for a specific course 82

and then compiling the performance 83

scores for students in the course to provide 84

departments an aggregated view of their students’ performance. Though the APP Project encourages 85

departments to provide many opportunities across a variety of courses for creating artifacts and 86

practicing the selection and arrangement necessary for an ePortfolio, assessment of the APP student 87

learning outcomes will focus on only those courses where students compile a professional ePortfolio, 88

APP Student Learning Outcomes

Ele

me

nt

inclu

de

d in

cours

e

Avera

ge s

tuden

t

perf

orm

ance

1. E

ffective C

om

munic

ation

Vis

ible

in P

roduct

1.1 variety

1.1a oral presentations

1.1b visuals within documents

1.2 conventions

1.3 language P

rocess

1.4 revision

1.5 different rhetorical situations

2. C

ritical T

hin

kin

g thro

ugh

Re

fle

ction

Vis

ible

in

Pro

duct

2.1 selection

2.2 connection

2.3 synthesis

2.4 professional identity

Pro

cess 2.5 use reflection to evaluate

2.6 make decisions

3. T

echnic

al

Co

mp

ete

ncy

Vis

ible

in

Pro

duct 3.1 use technology to create artifacts

3.2 web-based portfolio 3.3 understand limits and possibilities

Pro

cess 3.4 different technologies

3.5 make judgments 3.6 resolve technological problems

4. V

isual Litera

cy

Vis

ible

in

Pro

duct

4.1 use design principles 4.2 coherent navigation 4.3 follow design conventions

4.4 variety of visual materials

Pro

cess 4.5 make judgments

4.6 work with different rhetorical situations

Figure 6: Course Embedded Assessment Activities


58

most often a senior seminar or capstone course. These course instructors are uniquely positioned to see 89

not only the outcomes visible in the final portfolio product, but also to assess how well students are 90

attaining necessary process outcomes that will not be fully visible in the final product. The range of 91

specific elements in each outcome will vary across different disciplines so faculty in the disciplines will 92

determine which elements of each outcome are appropriate for their students. Where APPs are 93

produced within a course, the assessment data will be provided by the Course Instructor even if a 94

separate evaluation/assessment process is also occurring at the departmental level. Couse Instructors 95

will submit their assessment summaries to the APP Coordinator at the end of each term in which the 96

course was taught. 97

98


59

Sample Evaluation Rubric for APPs 99

The specific features for an APP must be adjusted to fit the expectations of different disciplines, but the 100

sample rubric in Figure 7 illustrates how a department can differentiate levels of proficiency across the 101

four learning outcomes associated with the APP Project. 102

Professional Developing Novice

Effe

ctiv

e C

om

mu

nic

atio

n

Documents are well selected for the audience and purpose

Documents demonstrate attention to conventions and proofreading.

Where visual materials are included in these documents, they are appropriate and well done.

The overall effect of the portfolio suggests strong communication skills across a range of documents and genres

And does so with attention to the number and kinds of documents the audience will expect.

Most documents are well selected but some are inappropriate for the purpose and/or audience.

Occasional errors within documents do not interfere with the message.

Visual materials within documents are appropriate but in some cases could be better handled.

The overall effect of the portfolio suggests good communication skills across a limited range of documents and/or genres.

The number and/or kinds of document show inconsistent attention to audience expectations.

Some of the documents are appropriate for the audience and/or purpose, but there are either too few to gauge proficiency or are inappropriate for a professional audience.

Visual materials are not well handled.

The overall effect of the portfolio creates some concern about the student’s communication skills or ability to move across a range of genres.

The number and kinds of document suggest little awareness of the audience’s expectations.

Cri

tica

l Th

inki

ng

Thro

ugh

Re

flec

tio

n The selection and arrangement of

artifacts and the contextual information provided with the individual artifacts demonstrates careful consideration of the connections across time and experiences.

A professional identity is consistently present throughout the portfolio

The selection and arrangement of artifacts often demonstrates careful synthesis and connecting of experiences

There is some inconsistency in the professional identity.

Contextual information is inconsistent and/or missing.

The portfolio shows little attention to selection and arrangement of artifacts.

Contextual material is usually missing and/or does not contribute to the demonstration of critical thinking abilities.

The identity created is insufficiently professional.

Tech

nic

al C

om

pet

ency

The portfolio demonstrates a range of technical skills both within artifacts and across the website itself.

Care has been taken to ensure that the site is accessible from different platforms.

There is enough variety and attention to details to suggest that the student understands the conventions and differences between social networking sites and a professional ePortfolio

The portfolio demonstrates a limited range of technical skills because most of the artifacts are of the same type and/or a standard template has been utilized without evidence of personalization.

At some points the site employs features more appropriate for a social networking site.

The quality and effectiveness varies depending on the platform used to access the material.

The portfolio demonstrates very limited technical skill.

Links are often broken and artifacts sometimes will not open.

The site mixes features of a social networking site and a professional portfolio enough that viewers wonder if the student understands the difference.

The portfolio follows a very rigid template showing little awareness or control of the technology.

Vis

ual

Lit

erac

y

The portfolio is visually effective and well designed.

There is a consistency to the design that suggests a deep understanding of design principles and the ability to evaluate the effectiveness of both individual artifacts and the site as a whole.

The portfolio is usually visually effective but some flaws in the design occur.

Attention to design principles is often present but is not consistent suggesting a more limited understanding these principles and how to execute them.

The portfolio is rarely visually effective.

Some artifacts include visual elements but the overall effect is that little attention has been paid to the design elements or their effectiveness of any visuals that are included.

Figure 7: Sample Evaluation Rubric 103


60

Departmental APP Assessment 104

Some departments will choose to use professional ePortfolios as part of their program assessment. In 105

such cases, the portfolios, or representative sample portfolios, will be evaluated by faculty members 106

other than the course instructor. Some departments already include their industry advisory board or 107

selected members of representative industries in senior project evaluations and these processes can 108

easily be adapted to the assessment of professional ePortfolios. 109

Where departments do not include a designated course for the 110

compilation of the ePortfolio, a departmental assessment will 111

be essential. Departments will submit their assessment data to 112

the APP Coordinator at least yearly, using a form like that 113

shown in Figure 6. 114

College-level Assessment Activities 115

Several existing assessments conducted at the department 116

and/or college level will be modified to include information 117

about APPs. The Graduation Survey administered by the Office 118

of Institutional Research will include questions about 119

ePortfolios beginning fall 2012 in order to provide some base 120

line data. Exit surveys, which exist in several colleges, will also 121

be easily modified. Data collected in these instruments will be 122

aggregated and tracked by college both for efficiency and to 123

protect individual student identity in small programs. 124

Senior Exit Interview or Survey 125

Interviewing seniors as they graduate is a routine practice for 126

some departments and colleges. Where APPs are adopted, 127

questions about the ePortfolio and the process of completing it 128

will be added to existing interviews or surveys (see Sidebar 14 129

for examples). Departments and colleges that do not have such 130

a process in place will be encouraged to consider adding it as 131

another indirect measure of students’ learning. There is also an 132

institutionally administered senior exit survey and ePortfolio 133

questions are being added into that instrument. The APP 134

Coordinator will collect the results of these surveys annually for 135

consideration by the ePortfolio Coordinating Council. 136

Alumni Surveys 137

Some colleges have a process in place for surveying alumni and 138

questions about professional ePortfolios will be added to those 139

survey instruments. Though the return rate is often quite poor, 140

asking alumni about the professional ePortfolio will add an 141

additional opportunity for reflection and provide a check on questions about intentions to maintain the 142

ePortfolio after graduation that will be asked to graduating seniors. Even alumni who did not create an 143

Sample Senior Exit Interview or

Survey Questions

1. What did you learn from the

process of completing the

Professional ePortfolio that you had

not learned in previous classes or

co-curricular experiences?

2. What kinds of support did you

receive for creating artifacts or

assembling the final product?

3. How could the expectation to

create a Professional ePortfolio in

this major better contribute to your

learning?

4. How much time did you spend

assembling the final Professional

ePortfolio?

5. Are you satisfied enough with the

result of your Professional

ePortfolio that you will continue to

update it with new experiences?

Sample Alumni Survey Questions

1. Did you maintain your

Professional ePortfolio after

graduation?

2. How frequently do you see

ePortfolios in your current position?

Sidebar 14: Sample Senior Exit Survey/Interview


61

APP can provide information about whether ePortfolios are becoming expected in specific professions. 144

Alumni surveys will be modified in year 1 of the APP Project in order to establish preliminary base-line 145

data. Subsequent surveys will be administered on the schedule used by individual colleges. 146

Employer or Industry Advisory Board Surveys 147

Many programs or colleges have Industry Advisory Boards or are in regular contact with employers, and 148

these individuals and groups can provide important information about how professional ePortfolios are 149

perceived in general and how specific examples from Auburn students are being read. Departments or 150

colleges will provide assessment data from these external stakeholders to the APP Coordinator at least 151

annually. 152

Institutional Assessment Activities 153

Departments already conduct different kinds of assessment and report their findings and the decisions 154

they have made based on that data to various institutional units or faculty committees. Several of these 155

existing reports include, or will be modified to include, information about the use of APPs. The 156

assessment of the APP Project is structured to collect as much of this existing data as possible without 157

asking faculty to spend time repeating details they have already reported. The APP Project Coordinator 158

will be responsible for compiling this data from existing reports and making recommendations as 159

necessary for modifications to the assessment instruments and/or reports that will enable better 160

monitoring of the APP Project. 161

Core Curriculum Assessment 162

Departments offering Core Curriculum courses collect, analyze, and report information on how fully 163

students are attaining the General Education Learning Outcomes identified for that course, and Core 164

departments submit periodic assessment reports to the Core Curriculum and General Education 165

Committee. This Committee also reviews courses that are being proposed as satisfying one or more of 166

the General Education Learning Outcomes. These documents will contain information about where in 167

the curriculum students are being given opportunities to create artifacts or practice skills necessary for 168

the creation of a professional ePortfolio. Though an indirect measure, the reports will be read by the 169

APP Coordinator and/or the Coordinating Committee to extract relevant data about the overlapping 170

learning outcomes of effective communication. The General Education Learning Outcome of aesthetic 171

appreciation will, in some cases, overlap with the visual literacy outcome of the APP Project, so the APP 172

Coordinator will review the reports for such matches. Critical thinking through reflection and 173

technological competence are not currently a part of the General Education Learning Outcomes. 174

AU Program Assessment 175

All departments submit annual reports on the learning objectives they’ve identified for their program to 176

the Office of Institutional Research. Many of these departments have objectives that overlap with the 177

student learning outcomes that have been identified for the APP Project. As departments join the APP 178

Project they will likely modify their program outcomes to include outcomes associated with the APP 179

Project. The APP Coordinator will work with the Office of Institutional Research to extract relevant data 180

from the Program Assessment reports. 181


62

Exemplary ePortfolio Awards 182

The APP Project Coordinating Committee will establish Exemplary ePortfolio Awards by year 3 of the 183

project and advertise the criteria for these awards in advance. In reviewing the submissions for the 184

awards, members of the Coordinating Committee will be asked to use a standard rubric linked to the 185

student learning outcomes. These evaluations will provide a different direct assessment of student 186

ePortfolios than the assessment done by course instructors or departments. The assessment of these 187

submissions for the Exemplary ePortfolio Awards will necessarily only include those elements visible in 188

the final ePortfolio and not the process elements that are necessary to produce the ePortfolio. 189

Writing Plan Assessment 190

The University Writing Committee regularly reviews the writing plans and the departments’ assessment 191

of those plans. Since many programs include or will include professional ePortfolios as part of their 192

capstone experience, these writing review reports will include information relevant to the APP Project. 193

The APP Coordinator will extract relevant information from the writing review reports and correlate the 194

information with the APP Project Student Learning Outcomes. 195

National Assessment Activities 196

Auburn University has participated in several assessments at the national level and will continue to do 197

so. Both the National Survey of Student Engagement (NSSE) and the Consortium of Colleges Studying 198

Writing survey include questions related to portfolios and the learning outcomes associated with the 199

APP Project. The APP Coordinator will work with the Office of Institutional Research to compile the 200

relevant data and present it to the Coordinating Committee and the AU Community. 201

National Survey of Student Engagement (NSSE) 202

Auburn University has administered the National Survey of Student Engagement since 2002. Some of 203

the questions on the survey overlap with the APP Project Student Learning Outcomes. In particular, 204

questions on the NSSE about making class presentations, preparing drafts, integrating information from 205

different sources, synthesizing information or experiences, making judgments, acquiring job skills, 206

writing clearly and effectively, thinking critically and analytically, speaking clearly and effectively, using 207

computing and information technology, and understanding yourself are relevant to the APP Project. The 208

APP Coordinator will work with the Office of Institutional Research to analysis the relevant survey 209

questions and track changes over the course of the APP Project. 210

Consortium of Colleges Studying Writing (CCSW) 211

In 2010 Auburn administered the 27 additional questions about writing developed by the Consortium of 212

Colleges Studying Writing as a part of the NSSE. The Consortium survey includes questions about 213

including visual materials in documents, creating projects with multi-media, addressing a real audience, 214

using language and genres of the discipline, and creating a portfolio that collects work from more than 215

one class. As part of a longitudinal study undertaken by the Office of University Writing, the faculty 216

version of the Consortium of Colleges Studying Writing survey was administered in fall 2010 to all faculty 217

who were teaching or who had taught an upper division course in the previous three years. Auburn will 218

administer both the student and faculty versions of the Consortium questions in 2015 and analyze the 219


63

change in answers from 2010 to 2015 to key questions connected to the student learning outcomes for 220

the APP Project. 221

Assessment of Impact of the APP Project 222

In addition to the assessment of the student learning outcomes identified within individual APPs, it is 223

important to assess the impact of the Project itself. Assessment of impact can occur by monitoring the 224

expansion of involvement in ePortfolios in general and completion of an APP in particular (quantitative 225

measures) and by attending to the depth of engagement of various stakeholders (qualitative measures). 226

Using Light, Chen, and Ittelson’s (2012) suggestions as a guide, the following benefits are expected from 227

the APP Project: 228

Impact on Students 229

1. the number of students completing professional ePortfolios will increase 230 2. the number of majors including professional ePortfolios as a final learning experience will 231

increase 232 3. students will have more confidence in their ability to communicate, think critically through 233

reflection, use technology, and/or use visual materials 234 4. students will be willing to continue to use and maintain their professional ePortfolios 235

Impact on Faculty 236

5. the number of faculty involved in using any type of ePortfolios in their courses will increase 237 6. faculty will have more interest in using ePortfolios of all kinds within courses and/or promoting 238

ePortfolios within the major 239 7. faculty will have more confidence in their ability to assess their students’ use of writing, 240

reflection, technology, and/or visual materials 241 8. faculty will develop scholarly projects connected to ePortfolios, including making presentations, 242

writing for publication, conducting research, and submitting grants for internal and external 243 funding of such projects 244

9. faculty will be willing to continue to use ePortfolios 245

Impact on Curriculum 246

10. the number of majors including preliminary opportunities for creating artifacts or practicing 247 skills essential to producing a professional ePortfolio will increase 248

11. visual literacy will become expected of, used, and taught in more majors 249 12. expectations that students will use technology will increase 250 13. ePortfolios will spread to other uses such as course or learning portfolios, program assessment 251

portfolios, professional portfolios for faculty, etc. 252 14. scaffolding of learning experiences across the major will be stronger and more visible; that is, 253

faculty will become more aware of how expected end-of-career abilities can be developed by 254 more and earlier opportunities for instruction and practice 255

15. communication activities will be incorporated into more courses and with more sophisticated 256 expectations for attention to the rhetorical situation, appropriate genre, adherence to 257 disciplinary expectations, and critical judgment 258

16. critical thinking through reflection will be expected and used in more majors 259

Impact on other (or all) Stakeholders 260

17. employers will come to expect Auburn students to have a professional ePortfolio 261


64

18. stakeholders of all kinds will gain sophistication in assessing ePortfolios 262 19. stakeholders of all kinds will be satisfied with the experience of ePortfolios and willing to 263

continue to use them 264 20. ePortfolios will support development of a co-curricular transcript 265

Figure 8 below provides an overview of the assessment methods for each of these levels of impact and 266

when those assessments begin. Once a measure begins, it continues annually. The chart also separates 267

the impact into expansion of involvement (quantitative measures) from depth of engagement 268

(qualitative measures). 269

270


65

Assessment of Impact of the APP Project 271

Environmental Methods Indirect Methods Direct Methods

QEP Evidence of Impact U

sa

ge

lo

gs

Re

vie

w o

f b

ud

ge

ts,

allo

cati

on

s o

f fu

nd

s

Re

po

rts

of

usa

ge

fro

m s

up

po

rt u

nit

s

Nu

mb

er

of

po

rtfo

lio

s

cre

ate

d

Att

en

da

nc

e a

t

eP

ort

folio

tra

inin

g

sessio

ns a

nd

wo

rksh

op

s

Pre

sen

tati

on

s a

nd

pu

bli

ca

tio

ns

Pre

ss a

rtic

les a

bo

ut

eP

ort

folio

Pro

ject

Su

rveys o

f stu

den

ts

Su

rveys o

f fa

cu

lty

Su

rveys o

f

de

pa

rtm

en

ts

Su

rveys o

f o

ther

sta

keh

old

ers

Evalu

ati

on

s o

f

wo

rksh

op

s

Re

po

rts

fro

m

pro

gra

ms

# s

ub

mis

sio

ns f

or

aw

ard

s

An

aly

sis

of

Co

urs

e

leaf

man

ag

em

en

t

Da

ta f

rom

ex

isti

ng

stu

dy

An

aly

sis

of

aw

ard

su

bm

issio

ns f

An

ec

do

tal re

po

rts

Ca

se

stu

die

s

Imp

act

on

Stu

den

ts

Invo

lvem

en

t

# completing

# of majors using

De

pth

of

En

gag

em

en

t

Level of confidence

Willingness to continue

Imp

act

on

Facu

lty

Invo

lvem

en

t

# of faculty involved

Interest and awareness

De

pth

of

En

gag

em

en

t

Level of confidence

Willingness to continue

Scholarly projects connected to ePortfolios

Imp

act

on

Cu

rric

ulu

m

Invo

lvem

en

t

Number of preliminary opportunities

Expectations for visual literacy

Expectations for technical competence

Expansion of use

De

pth

of

En

gag

em

en

t

Scaffolding across the major

Expectations for communication

Expectations for critical thinking through reflection

Imp

act

on

oth

er

(or

all)

sta

keh

old

ers

Inv

olv

em

en

t

Employer expectations

De

pth

of

En

gag

em

en

t

Assessment of ePortfolios

Willingness to continue project

Support for co-curricular transcript

Begin Y1 Y2 Y1 Y1 Y1 Y2 Y1 Y1 Y1 Y1 Y2 Y1 Y2 Y3 Y3 Y1 Y4 Y1 Y4

Figure 8: QEP Evidence of Impact


66

Environmental Assessment Methods 272

Light, Chen, and Ittelson (2012) provide several examples of assessing the impact of an ePortfolio 273

project using “environmental” methods. The Assessment of the Impact of the APP Project uses many of 274

these methods while relying as much as possible on methods that are already in existence. These are 275

described below. 276

Usage Logs 277

The Miller Writing Center, the Media and Digital Technology Lab, and the Career Services all keep usage 278

data that details student use of these services. Requests for help with professional ePortfolios will be 279

added to these existing usage forms and usage will be reported annually to the APP Coordinator. If an 280

ePortfolio platform is adopted, data on the use of the system will also be analyzed yearly. Beginning in 281

year 1 (2012) will establish a baseline for future comparison. 282

Review of Budgets; Allocation of Funds 283

A successful project must manage its resources effectively. The APP Coordinator and Director will 284

prepare a yearly report detailing allocation of funds for review by the Senior Leadership Team and the 285

Coordinating Council. 286

Number of ePortfolios Created 287

Growth in the number of ePortfolios created is one measure of the impact of the project. The number of 288

portfolios is expected to increase over time even though APPs are not mandatory and will not be 289

adopted by all programs as a required component of the major. Tracking the number of APPs completed 290

by students enrolled in programs that do require APPs as well as the number completed by students in 291

majors where they are not required will help document whether students perceive the creation of a 292

professional ePortfolios as a valuable addition to their education. This type of tracking will be easier to 293

monitor if students are using a standard ePortfolio system, but since some programs and individuals will 294

use alternatives even if a university-wide system is supported, other counts will be necessary as a check. 295

Attendance at ePortfolio Training Sessions and Workshops 296

Since a variety of workshops and training sessions for faculty and students are planned in the Action 297

Items, keeping attendance records for all of these workshops will provide another measure of the 298

expansion of participation. Sign-in sheets will be collated into a single database in order to measure the 299

depth of involvement of individuals and/or programs by the pattern of repeat participation. 300

Publications and Presentations 301

Faculty who publish work or make professional presentations connected to ePortfolios will record such 302

activity on their annual report of faculty activity in Digital Measures. This database can be searched to 303

track such additions to faculty profiles. 304

Press Articles about ePortfolio Projects 305

The APP Coordinator will be responsible for collecting news stories about the APP Project. In the case of 306

the writing initiative, articles have appeared in the campus newspaper, in the student year book, and in 307

the monthly Auburn Report which is distributed to faculty and staff. Similar interest and coverage of the 308

APP Project is expected. Other kinds of communication about the use of ePortfolios will appear over 309


67

time, including reports of faculty presentations or publications, announcements of grants received and 310

exemplary awards given, and features on innovative classroom practices connected to ePortfolios. 311

Numbers will indicate the general interest in ePortfolios, but analysis of shifts in focus or expansion of 312

topics over time will show the depth of impact of ePortfolios. 313

Indirect Methods 314

Again relying on Light, Chen, and Ittelson (2012), the APP Project Coordinator in conjunction with the 315

APP Project Coordinating Council will work with the Office of Institutional Research, colleges, and 316

departments to modify existing surveys of students, faculty, departments, and other stakeholders to 317

track satisfaction and depth of engagement. In addition, reports from programs and the number of 318

submissions for awards and grants will provide numerical data about the impact of the project. 319

Surveys of Students 320

As discussed in the Assessment of Learning Outcomes, existing surveys of students will be modified to 321

include questions related to professional ePortfolios. Responses will provide another picture of the 322

numbers of students involved, their experiences, their satisfaction with the products they produce, and 323

the level of support their received both in courses and from support units. 324

Surveys of Faculty 325

Surveys of faculty were used to help identify the QEP topic and the likely first adopters. Subsequent 326

surveys will make clear whether faculty understand the project, their degree of interest, and their 327

involvement in the APP Project. Surveys of faculty will also track satisfaction with using ePortfolios, with 328

the support they receive, and with the quality of the products students produce. 329

Surveys of Departments 330

Surveys of individual faculty members provide a close up view of faculty perspectives, but departmental 331

data suggest the larger picture. For example, surveys of department chairs or others who are in a 332

position to know what is happening with ePortfolios across the entire department will be useful in 333

gauging not only expansion of interest, but depth of engagement. 334

Surveys of Other Stakeholders 335

Surveys of alumni, parents, advisors, administrators, support units, and employers will provide another 336

perspective on the impact of ePortfolios, but identifying the appropriate individuals to survey will be 337

challenging. The return rate of surveys is often low, especially when the same people are surveyed 338

repeatedly. The APP Coordinator will work with the Office of Institutional Research to identify 339

appropriate and feasible ways to survey other stakeholders. 340

Reports from Programs 341

As outlined in the Assessment of Student Learning Outcomes, a number of reports are already produced 342

by programs/departments on a regular basis. The APP Coordinator will be able to analyze these reports 343

to provide documentation of both expansion and depth of impact. 344


68

Number of Submissions for Awards and Grants 345

As more students produce APPs, the number and variety of submissions to the Exemplary Portfolio 346

Awards is expected to increase. Likewise, applications to faculty awards that include evidence of 347

ePortfolio use will increase. Because action items that connect ePortfolios to research and scholarship 348

have been included in the APP Project, an increase in grants, presentations, and publications is expected 349

as well. The APP Coordinator will work with the Office of Institutional Research to monitor reported 350

activity in Digital Measures, with the Office of Research to collect information about grants connected to 351

ePortfolios, and with the Coordinating Council to track internal funding and awards. 352

Direct Methods 353

Case studies, examples of assignments and reflective prompts, faculty assessment results, and anecdotal 354

stories of how ePortfolios are being used are all mentioned by Light, Chen, and Ittelson (2012) as 355

possible direct methods for assessing the impact of an ePortfolio project. Five of these methods will be 356

used as direct measures of the impact of the APP Project. The APP Project Coordinator will compile the 357

data to present to the Coordinating Committee. 358

Analysis of Course Leaf Management System 359

A new Course Leaf Management System will provide a standardized and searchable database of courses 360

so that when ePortfolios are mentioned in the course description that course can be identified and 361

counted. The Auburn University Bulletin currently mentions portfolios as a feature of twenty programs. 362

That number will increase over the course of the APP Project, though it is expected that at some point 363

the number of programs that are interested in requiring professional ePortfolios will level off. The APP 364

Coordinator will work with the Associate Provost for Undergraduate Studies as this system is 365

implemented to ensure that courses using ePortfolios or contributing to students’ creation of artifacts or 366

development of skills connected to professional ePortfolios are tagged and counted. Expansion is 367

expected, but depth of involvement will also occur over time and a further analysis of the course syllabi 368

or case studies will be developed as the APP Project matures. 369

Data from Existing Longitudinal Study by Office of University Writing 370

The Office of University Writing is already engaged in a longitudinal study of the changes in faculty 371

conceptions of writing and their practices of teaching writing in the climate of a university-wide writing 372

initiative. Some of the participants in this study are likely first adopters of professional ePortfolios. The 373

study includes an analysis of teaching materials, including assignments and evaluation rubrics, as well as 374

interviews with faculty, classroom observations, and surveys and interviews with students. Data from 375

this study provides a context for thinking about the impact of ePortfolios on writing, and the writing 376

initiative’s impact on the APP Project. 377

Analysis of Award Submissions and Winners 378

In addition to the growth in the number of submissions for the Exemplary ePortfolio Awards, the quality 379

of those submissions is expected to improve over time. As the Coordinating Committee evaluates the 380

submissions, they will keep rubrics and have discussions that will provide evidence of how reviewers 381

assess the quality of professional ePortfolios. A careful analysis of these documents will provide direct 382

evidence of depth of impact of the project. 383


69

Anecdotal Reports 384

What people say about ePortfolios in general or the APP Project specifically will naturally guide 385

interventions and decisions. Some faculty members initially believed the APP Project was another 386

mandate like the Writing Initiative and some believed that ePortfolios were merely another assessment 387

device. Steps were taken to correct these misperceptions and action items include further informational 388

sessions for fall 2012. On the other hand, there is some anecdotal evidence that students think creating 389

ePortfolios will be an enjoyable and innovative way to work on their writing, thinking, visual, and 390

technical skills. Collecting reactions from individual students and faculty will begin in fall 2012 with a 391

series of informal interviews. Students have suggested creating videos to capture the advice of students 392

who have completed professional ePortfolios and making those videos available on the website along 393

with answers to frequently asked questions. The Office of University Writing will undertake such a 394

project in conjunction with the Student Writing Council beginning in fall 2012. SGA Leadership has 395

expressed interest in the APP Project because it fits so well with their mission to “serve and promote the 396

individual student; unifying all that is Auburn.” Analyzing what such evidence means and any changes in 397

reactions over time will be done by the APP Coordinator, Director and Coordinating Council. 398

Case Studies 399

Case studies are one of the ways that faculty will connect ePortfolios to research. While it is impossible 400

to determine precisely what case studies will emerge, it is reasonable to anticipate and encourage 401

studies focused on students, on faculty, on one or more of the learning outcomes, on specific 402

departments or programs, on the connections between courses and co-curricular activities or academic 403

support units, and on employers. Because Student Affairs has already expressed interest in professional 404

ePortfolios in relation to their existing efforts to develop leadership programs and a co-curricular 405

transcript, case study interviews with Student Affairs personnel designed to gauge the impact of 406

ePortfolios on non-classroom learning will be conducted by the APP Coordinator beginning in year 4.407

http://auburn.edu/sga/branches/presidents_desk/

Appendix A: Roster of Committees Auburn University: The APP Project – Draft for Discussion June 22, 2012

70

Appendices: 1

APPENDIX A: Roster of Committees 2

Auburn University Quality Enhancement Plan Exploratory Committee, 2010-11 3

Name: University Affiliation:

1. Bernard, Nancy Director of Career Services

2. Bhavnani, Sushil** Professor of Mechanical Engineering

3. Boosinger, Marcia Associate Dean of the Library

4. Boston, Katelyn Undergraduate Student

5. Burk, Thor Administrative Support Assistant

6. Chaudhury, Raj Associate Director of the Biggio Center for the Enhancement of Teaching and Learning

7. Clark, Drew*** ACS Liaison & Director

8. DeTure, Monica Director of Distance Learning

9. Dowdle, Deedie Exec. Director of University Communications and Marketing

10. Duffy, Patricia Professor Agri Economics & Rural Soc

11. Eick, Charles Associate Professor of Curriculum and Teaching

12. Erath, Stephen Associate Professor of Human Development & Family Studies

13. Flowers, George Dean of the Graduate School

14. Flynn, Kathryn Director of Interdisciplinary Studies Program

15. Harris, Paul Associate Director of the Honors College

16. Gillespie, Andy Assistant Provost for International Programs

17. Hecht, Amy Assistant VP of Student Affairs

18. Hendricks, Constance Professor of Nursing

19. Inabinet, Steve Aviation Management Alumnus

20. Jarvis, Kathryn Director of Student Academic Support

21. Johnson, Iryna Associate Director of Assessment

22. Josephson, Missy Associate Professor of Anatomy, Phys. & Pharmacology

23. Key, Kim Associate Professor of Accounting

24. Marshall, Margaret Director of the Office of University Writing

25. Mathies, Brittany Graduate Student

26. Oleinick, Thereza Associate Professor of Theatre

27. Phelps, Kevin Professor of Mathematics and Statistics

28. Rogers, Tom Undergraduate Students

29. Scott-Harris, Shirley Director of Alabama Power Academic Excell (Engineering Administration)

30. Weaver, David Professor of Agronomy & Soils

** Chair of the QEP Exploratory Committee, *** Ex officio member, non-voting 4

5

Appendix A: Roster of Committees Auburn University: The APP Project – Draft for Discussion June 22, 2012

71

Auburn University Quality Enhancement Plan Development Committee: 6

1. Bailey, Bliss Executive Director of Office of Information Technology

2. Burt, Richard** Professor and Head of McWhorter School of Building Science

3. Elmer, Laura Instructor & Defoe Research Fellow, Department of English

4. Lock, Leonard Coordinator of Assessment and Evaluation, College of Education

5. Marshall, Margaret Director of University Writing, Professor of English

6. Phelps, Kevin Professor of Mathematics and Statistics

7. Relihan, Constance Associate Provost of Undergraduate Studies

8. Sanderson, Bonnie Associate Professor of School of Nursing

9. Stamm, Pamela Associate Professor of Pharmacy Practice, Harrison School of Pharmacy

10. Trehub, Aaron Assistant Dean of Systems, Auburn University Libraries

** Chair of the QEP Development Committee 7

1

Appendix B: Criteria for Selection ePortfolio Platform Auburn University: The APP Project – Draft for Discussion June 22, 2012

72

APPENDIX B: Criteria for Selecting ePortfolio Platform 1

The following criteria were determined by reviewing the scholarship and consulting the resources 2

compiled at Electronic Portfolio Action and Communication: Community of Practice 3

http://epac.pbworks.com/w/page/12559686/Evolving%20List%C2%A0of%C2%A0ePortfolio-4

related%C2%A0Tools (epac 2012) 5

1. Company profile 6

2. Customer base/size 7

3. Cost/pricing 8

4. Support (free and fee-based) 9

5. System requirements 10

6. Hosted solution? 11

7. Storage capacity (per account) 12

8. Aesthetics (look and feel) and user-friendliness 13

9. Ability to customize 14

10. Multi-use across departments (different e-Portfolio types or “views”) 15

11. Portability (exporting/migration) 16

12. Multimedia support 17

13. Mechanism for feedback from instructors (with or without rubrics) 18

14. Integration with current campus technologies 19

15. Accessibility (Section 508) 20

16. Ability to access after graduation 21

17. Security 22

18. Privacy 23

19. Standards compliance 24

20. Published API (application programming interface) 25

1

http://epac.pbworks.com/w/page/12559686/Evolving%20List%C2%A0of%C2%A0ePortfolio-related%C2%A0Tools

http://epac.pbworks.com/w/page/12559686/Evolving%20List%C2%A0of%C2%A0ePortfolio-related%C2%A0Tools

Appendix C: Bibliography Auburn University: The APP Project – Draft for Discussion June 22, 2012

73

APPENDIX C: Bibliography 1

Works Cited: 2

Aker, S., et al. (2007). “National Coalition for Electronic Portfolio Research - Cohort II: Ohio State 3 University Final Report.” National Coalition for Electronic Portfolio Research. Web. 4 June 2012. 4 <ncepr.org/emergent_findings.html#finalreports> 5

American Association of Colleges and Universities (AAC&U). (2007). College Learning for a New Global 6 Century. Washington, D. C.: AAC&U. 7

Auburn University. Quality Enhancement Plan Website. Web. 8 <http://www.auburn.edu/communications_marketing/qep/> 9

Ayan, D., and G. Seferoglue. (2010). “Using electronic portfolios to promote reflective thinking in 10 language teacher education.” Education Studies, 37(5), 513-521. 11 <http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/03055698.2010.539782> 12

Bauerlein, M. (2009) The Dumbest Generation: how the digital age stupefies young Americans and 13 jeopardizes our future (or, don't trust anyone under 30). Penguin. 14

Bhika, R., M. Napolitano, A. Wu, H. Fernandez, A. Francis, N. Maguire, and N. Lytle. (2011). “Using 15 ePortfolio to Foster an Integrative Teaching and Learning Experience.” AAEEBL Southeast US 16 Conference. Virginia Tech. 8 November. 17

Bowling Green State University. (2006). “National Coalition for Electronic Portfolio Research: Bowling 18 Green State University Preliminary Finding.” National Coalition for Electronic Portfolio Research. 19 Web. 9 April 2011. <ncepr.org/emergent_findings.html#finalreports> 20

Campbell, J. et al. (2011). “The Value of a First Year Portfolio Assessment for Faculty and Student 21 Learning, Final Report from the University of Denver Electronic Portfolio Research Team,” 22 National Coalition for Electronic Portfolio Research. Web. 4 June 2012. 23 <ncepr.org/emergent_findings.html#finalreports> 24

Center for Distributed Learning. (nd). “ePortfolio Concept Map.” Teaching Commons. Web. 28 October 25 2011. <http://teachingcommons.cdl.edu/eportfolio/eportposter.html> 26

Chang, C. (2001). “A Study on the Evaluation and Effectiveness Analysis of Web-based Learning 27 Portfolio.” British Journal of Educational Technology, 32.4: 435-458. Print. 28

Clark, J., E. and B. Eynon. (2009). “E-portfolios at 2.0—Surveying the Field.” Peer Review, 11, 1. Web. 7 29 Feb. 2012. <http://www.aacu.org/peerreview/prwi09/prwi09_eportfolios.cfm> 30

Clark, J., E. and B. Eynon. (2012). “ePortfolios from the Ground Up: Planning, Implementing, Creating” 31 Grand Hyatt Hotel. Washington, D. C. 25 January 2012. 32

Dewey, J. (1910, 1933). How we think: A restatement of the relation of reflective thinking to the 33 educative process. Lexington, MA: Heath. Print. 34


74

Ellis, L., J. Cheung, K. Oliver, C. Fawyer, S. Repokis, N. D. Melton, and D. Martin. (2011). “The ePortfolio 35 Experience: The Importance of Student Buy-In.” AAEEBL Southeast US Conference. Virginia Tech. 36 7 November. 37

Eynon, B. (2011). “Keynote Address: ePortfolios Focused on Learning and Integrative Online Thinking.” 38 AAEEBL Southeast US Conference. Virginia Tech. 7 November. 39

Eynon, B. and L. M. Gambino. (2011). “Workshop 3: Integration, Reflection, and ePortfolio.” AAEEBL 40 Southeast US Conference. Virginia Tech. 8 November. 41

EPAC. (2012). Electronic Portfolio Action and Communication: Community of Practice. Web. 4 November 42 2011. 43 <http://epac.pbworks.com/w/page/12559686/Evolving%20List%C2%A0of%C2%A0ePortfolio-44 related%C2%A0Tools> 45

Framingham State College. (2009). “National Coalition for Electronic Portfolio Research - Cohort III: 46 Framingham State College Three Year Report.” National Coalition for Electronic Portfolio 47 Research. Web. 4 June 2012. <ncepr.org/emergent_findings.html#finalreports> 48

Hall, H. M. (2012). Personal Correspondence re Professional ePortfolio. 22 April 2012. 49

Hart Research Associates. (2010). “Raising the Bar: Employers’ Views on College Learning in the Wake of 50 the Economic Downturn: A Survey Among Employers Conducted on Behalf of The Association of 51 American Colleges and Universities.” Web. 20 April 2011. 52 <http://www.aacu.org/leap/documents/2009_EmployerSurvey.pdf> 53

Hart, W. R. (2010). Personal Correspondence re Professional ePortfolio. 12 June 2012. 54

Hatton, N. and D. Smith. (1995). “Reflection in teacher education: Towards Definition and 55 Implementation.” Teaching and Teacher Education (11) 1, 33-49. 56

Johnson, G., P. H. Hsieh, and K. Kidwai. (2007). “Perceived Value and Persistence of WebPublishing Skills: 57 Implications for E-Portfolio Systems.” International Journal on E-Learning, 6.3: 379-394. 58 Chesapeake, VA: AACE. Web. 9 April 2011. 59

Kelly, T. M. (2006). “The Role of Technology in World History Teaching.” World History Connected (3) 3: 60 22. Web. 13 April 2011. <http://worldhistoryconnected.press.illinois.edu/3.3/kelly.html> 61

Kleemann, G., et al. (2008). ePortfolios at Arizona State University. Inter/National Consortium for 62 Electronic Portfolio Research, Final Reports. Web. 4 June 2012. 63 <http://ncepr.org/finalreports/cohort3/ASU%20Final%20Report.pdf> 64

Kolb, D. (1984). “Experiential learning: Experience as the source of learning and development.” 65 Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall. 66

LaGuardia Community College. (2006). “National Coalition for Electronic Portfolio Research: Laguardia 67 Community College Research Findings.” National Coalition for Electronic Portfolio Research. 68 Web. 4 June 2012. < ncepr.org/emergent_findings.html#finalreports> 69

Light, T. P., H. L. Chen, and J. C. Ittelson. (2012) Documenting Learning with ePortfolios: A Guide for 70 College Instructors. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass. 71


75

McNair, L. and W. Garrison. (2011). “Behind the Curtain: Revealing the Secrets of How to Help Students 72 Engage with their Portfolio.” AAEEBL Southeast US Conference. Virginia Tech. 7 November. 73

Mixon, C. and J. Smith. (2011). Annotations for Kristen Barrett Professional ePortfolio. 2010 Louisiana 74 State University Distinguished Communicator. Prepared for QEP Pre-Proposal Communicating 75 with ePortfolios. Auburn. <http://dcomm.cxc.lsu.edu/portfolios/10spr/kramse6/index.html> 76

Office of Institutional Research and Assessment (OIRA). (2009). Alumni Survey 2009.‖ Auburn University. 77 Web. 9 April, 2011. <https://oira.auburn.edu/> 78

Office of Institutional Research and Assessment (OIRA). (2010). NSSE Mean Comparisons Consortium of 79 Colleges Studying Writing. Auburn University. Web. 14 April 2011. <https://oira.auburn.edu/> 80

Ramanau, R., A. Hosein, and C. Jones. (2010) “Learning and living technologies: A longitudinal study of 81 first-year students’ expectations and experiences in the use of ICT.” 7th International 82 Conference on Networked Learning, 3-4 May 2010, Aalborg, Denmark. 83

Rhodes, T. (2011). “The Proof is in the Portfolio: Assessing for Learning as if it Mattered.”‖RosEvaluation 84 Conference. Terre Haute, IN. 18 April 2011. 85

Scriven, M. and R. Paul. (1987). “Critical Thinking as Defined by the National council for Excellence in 86 Critical Thinking.” International Conference on Critical Thinking and Education Reform. Web. 19 87 January, 2012.< http://www.criticalthinking.org/pages/defining-critical-thinking/766.> 88

Shermis, S. S. (1999). “Reflective Thought, Critical Thinking.” ERIC Clearinghouse on Reading, English, 89 Communication. ED436007. Web. 9 April 2011. 90

University of Washington. (2006). “National Coalition for Electronic Portfolio Research: University of 91 Washington Preliminary Findings.” National Coalition for Electronic Research. Web. 4 June 2012. 92 <ncepr.org/emergent_findings.html#finalreports> 93

Wallace, A. and L. Ellis. (2011). “ePortfolios as a Demonstration of Undergraduate Students’ Learning.” 94 AAEEBL Southeast US Conference. Virginia Tech. 7 November. 95

Yancey, K. (2009). “Reflection and Electronic Portfolios.” Electronic Portfolios 2.0: Emergent Research on 96 Implementation and Impact. Eds. Darren Cambridge, Barbara Cambridge, and Kathleen Yancey. 97 Sterling: Stylus. 98

Young, C. (2006). “National Coalition for Electronic Portfolio Research: Cohort 1 Focusing on Two 99 Aspects of Project 1) Research Findings, and 2) Evidence for the Findings.” National Coalition for 100 Electronic Portfolio Research. Web. 4 June 2012. 101 <ncepr.org/emergent_findings.html#finalreports> 102

Zubizarreta, J. (2009). The Learning Portfolio: Reflective Practice for Improving Student Learning. 2nd 103 edition. San Francisco, CA.: Jossey-Bass. 104

105


76

Works Consulted: 106

Barrett, H. (2005). “Frequently-asked questions about electronic portfolios.” Electronic Portfolios FAQ. 107 Web. 4 June 2012. <http://electronicportfolios.com/faq.html> 108

Cohen, E. (2011). “Portfolio Assessment.” Funderstanding. 2011 Web. 4 June 2012. 109 <http://www.funderstanding.com/v2/educators/portfolio-assessment/> 110

Gehard, P., ed. (2004). “Insight observatory for new technologies and education.” E-portfolio scenarios. 111 April 26. Web. 4 June 2012. 112 <http://www.xplora.org/ww/en/pub/insight/school_innovation/eportfolio_scenarios/portfolios113 _types.htm> 114

Hartnell-Young, E. and M. Morris. (1999). Digital Professional Portfolios for Change. Arlington Heights: 115 Skylight Professional Development. 116

Niguidula, D. (2009). “Documenting learning with digital portfolio's.” Educational Leadership, Association 117 for Supervision and Curriculum Development, November, 44-47. 118

Regis University Electronic Portfolio Project. (2003). E-portfolios: types of ePortfolios. Web. 4 June 2012. 119 <http://academic.regis.edu/laap/eportfolio/basics_types.htm> 120

QEP Exploratory Committee. (2011). Auburn University Quality Enhancement Plan Topic Survey.‖Auburn 121 University. Web. 9 April, 2011. 122

Wolf, K. (1999). Leading the Professional Portfolio Process for Change. Arlington Heights, IL: Skylight 123 Professional Development. 124

Appendix D: External Consultant Auburn University: The APP Project – Draft for Discussion June 22, 2012

77

APPENDIX D: External Consultant Kathleen Yancey, Florida State University 1

Introduction prepared for March 27, 2012 meeting with early participants. 2

We are very fortunate to have with us today KATHLEEN BLAKE YANCEY, the Kellogg W. Hunt Professor of 3

English at Florida State University and a renowned scholar whose work with writing, reflection, writing 4

assessment, and ePortfolios is well known and highly regarded. In fact her work led to her being named 5

a Distinguished Research Professor at Florida State where she serves as Director of the graduate 6

program in Rhetoric and Composition. Earlier this spring she was recognized with Purdue University’s 7

2012 Distinguished Women Scholars Award, the first such award Purdue has given to a woman from the 8

liberal arts. 9

Dr. Yancey is the co-founder of the journal Assessing Writing, which she co-edited for seven years. She is 10

currently the editor of College Composition and Communication, the premier journal in composition and 11

rhetoric. In addition, she has authored, edited, or co-edited eleven scholarly books and two textbooks as 12

well as over 70 articles and book chapters. Her latest book, the co-edited Electronic Portfolios 2.0, 13

highlights the research on electronic portfolios conducted through the Inter/National Coalition for 14

Electronic Portfolio Research, an organization with over 60 institutional partners from around the world 15

which Professor Yancey co-leads. 16

Dr. Yancey has served as president or chair of several scholarly and professional organizations including 17

the National Council of Teachers of English, the Conference on College Composition and 18

Communication, the NCTE College Section and the College Forum, and the Council of Writing Program 19

Administrators. Currently, she is second vice-president for the South Atlantic Modern Language 20

Association (SAMLA) and will succeed to the presidency in 2013. She also serves on the National Board 21

for Miami University of Ohio's Howe Center for Writing Excellence and on the Steering Committee for 22

the Association for Authentic, Experiential, and Evidence-Based Learning. She was involved in the 23

Steering Committee of the 2011 National Assessment of Educational Progress and the Steering 24

Committee for the American Association of Colleges and Universities VALUE project focused on 25

electronic portfolios. Please join me in welcoming Dr. Kathleen Blake Yancey. 26

Additional details at: http://www.english.fsu.edu/faculty/kyancey.htm 27

http://www.english.fsu.edu/faculty/kyancey.htm

Appendix E: Interested Participants Auburn University: The APP Project – Draft for Discussion June 22, 2012

78

APPENDIX E: List of Interested Participants 1

Colleges & Programs Interested in Participation by Stages of Development 2

(All Enrollment #s from September 2010; will be updated in September 2012) 3

No Portfolios Currently: 4

College Departments/Programs Undergrad: Graduate: Total

enrollment:

AG Agronomy & Soils 60 37 97

ED Agriscience Education 23 0 23

ED Elementary Education 123 34 157

ED Music Education Program 51 25 76

ED Reading Education 0 6 6

ED Secondary Science Education 50 5 55

ED Social Sciences Education 109 6 115

EN Aerospace Engineering 131 44 175

EN Biosystems Engineering 39 3 42

EN Industrial and Systems Engineering

Department. 131 134 265

LA Communication Disorders 0 31 31

LA English 226 81 307

LA English, First Year Composition *** 0 ***

LA History 258 55 313

LA Philosophy 45 0 45

LA Political Science 293 0 293

LA Theatre 28 0 28

5

6


79

Non-Digital Portfolios Currently: 7


Enrollment:

ED Foreign Languages Education 9 17 26

HS Hotel and Restaurant Management 176 0 176

HS Didactic Program in Dietetics *** *** ***

HS Human Development

& Family Studies 327 53 380

LA Art 137 0 137

LA Foreign Languages 136 29 165

8

ePortfolios Required or in Development: 9


Enrollment:

AG Agricultural Communications 31 0 31

AR Architecture 152 0 152

AR Building Science 232 0 232

AR Graphic Design 117 0 117

AR Industrial Design 135 13 148

ED Business/Marketing Education 8 38 46

ED Early Childhood Education 117 17 134

ED Library Media/Administration of

Higher Education (EFLT) 0 8 8

HS Consumer Affairs (Apparel Design) 254 12 266

NU Nursing 667 24 691

PH Pharmacy 0 899 899


80

Other Impacted Programs & Units: 10

Auburn University Career Services

Biggio Center for Enhancement of Teaching and Learning

Cooperative Education (Co-Op) Program

First Year Experience

First-Year Programs, Learning Communities

University Interdisciplinary Studies

Learning Communities

Miller Writing Center

Office of Public Service

Student Leadership Program

University Library

Liberal Arts

Graduate School

1

2

3

Appendix F: Job Descriptions Auburn University: The APP Project – Draft for Discussion June 22, 2012

81

APPENDIX F: Job Descriptions 1

The following description is modeled from similar positions at Virginia Tech and Loyola. 2

Coordinator, Auburn Professional ePortfolio (APP) Project 3

Responsibilities: 4

Reporting to the Director of University Writing, the Coordinator of the APP Project provides 5

leadership to the faculty, administration, and system support staff for the effective 6

implementation and adoption of electronic portfolio technologies and pedagogies 7

Manages a 5-year staged implementation plan for university-wide utilization of APPs 8

Implements the infrastructure and other action items identified as essential for the APP Project, 9

building on existing efforts to improve student learning, enhance teaching, and embed 10

significant communication experiences throughout the curriculum 11

Promotes a variety of efforts to use electronic portfolios in courses, academic programs, and co-12

curricular experiences 13

Develops support and training, including sample portfolios illustrating best practices for a 14

variety of disciplines 15

Works with the Office of University Writing, the Biggio Center for the Enhancement of Teaching 16

and Learning, and the Instructional Media Group to create a coordinated approach to support 17

faculty efforts to develop curriculum and pedagogy appropriate to professional ePortfolios 18

Works with the Miller Writing Center, the Digital Media Resource Lab, and Career Services to 19

provide support to students in creating effective APPs 20

Oversees and supports the collection of student learning data, and systematizes the more 21

complicated elements of academic assessment and accreditation efforts connected to the APP 22

Project 23

Co-ordinates with the Office of Institutional Research to create appropriate reports on the APP 24

Project 25

Other responsibilities include leading and collaborating with other team members involved with 26

the APP Project. The APP Coordinator should be involved in the larger community of electronic 27

portfolio research and development and prepared to represent Auburn in these national and 28

international conversations 29

Qualifications 30

Master’s degree in an education-related field demonstrating a comprehensive knowledge of 31

learning technologies or an equivalent level of training and experience (Ph.D. preferred) 32

Sophisticated knowledge of, and experience with, the educational uses of new digital 33

technologies 34

Experience in program leadership 35

Demonstrated ability to provide excellent support for faculty and students 36

Experience teaching in classroom and workshop settings 37

Familiarity with classroom and curricular assessment strategies 38


82

Ability to work effectively in team environments 39

Ability to troubleshoot complex software 40

Ability to make presentations to diverse groups of people 41

Excellent communication and interpersonal skills 42

Information Technology Specialist 43

Responsibilities: 44

(70%) Provide leadership and technical expertise for expanding technology elements that 45

support the writing initiative at Auburn and the mission of the Office of University Writing. 46

Develop and/or consult on purchase of commercial products for new systems as necessary to 47

accomplish all aspects of Office of University Writing’s mission, including support to students 48

and faculty, regular review of writing in the majors, research related to writing and writing 49

instruction, outreach, celebration and promotion of writing, and of efforts to enhance the 50

culture of writing. Research appropriate systems and coordinate with other campus units on 51

larger-impact projects. Ensure that systems work together and coordinate interface with other 52

campus systems. Represent the Office of University Writing in discussions related to 53

technological support of writing. Identify and develop new technology-related projects that 54

continue the Office of University Writing’s mission. Manage multiple projects and systems, and 55

work with other Office of University Writing staff to set priorities. Anticipated systems within 56

the next two years include, but are not limited to: 57

o automated system for review of writing plans (approximately 30 programs reviewed 58

each year, plans distributed to University Writing Committee for review, reports 59

generated, information conveyed to departments, plans and data posted to website) 60

o library of instruction video productions, linking documents to specific videos, create 61

searchable interface by key terms/topics 62

o on-line tutoring 63

o instructional materials with searchable interface 64

o monthly newsletter 65

o information and videos for students with searchable interface 66

o on-line journal publication 67

(15 %) Maintain and expand website, including: 68

o regular posting of new material (writing plans; faculty and student resources; profiles of 69

tutors, staff and writing committee members; news items, announcements and profiles 70

of Auburn writers, instructional videos for faculty and students) 71

o creation of new pages with new content 72

o redesigns to accommodate new features 73

o adjust materials and designs to allow access by various devices (cell phones, etc.) 74

o work with undergraduates, graduate students, and faculty on content; supervise work 75

of undergraduate and graduate students assigned to technology-related projects, 76

including establishing deadlines, monitoring progress, and ensuring quality of finished 77

products 78


83

o advise staff and faculty about most appropriate design and technology features to 79

achieve desired objectives 80

(10%) Maintain and expand use of SharePoint site 81

o advise on management of SP site for longitudinal research study 82

o create and maintain SharePoint site for other Office of University Writing tasks, 83

assignments to staff, project management 84

o generate and analyze data about time and resource use, costs of projects, etc. 85

(5%) Review and evaluate data to improve systems and services 86

o track data from on-line appointment system and produce yearly reports of Writing 87

Center usage 88

o monitor and evaluate web site access 89

o monitor and evaluate use and effectiveness of new systems 90

Qualifications: 91

Required: 92

o Advanced knowledge of HTML, CSS, and Javascript with jQuery 93

o Knowledge of MVC architecture and/or Microsoft ASPX framework, object-oriented 94

programming experience and prior exposure of C# preferred 95

o Advanced knowledge and experience with all Windows program suite 96

o Familiarity with XML 97

o Understanding of and practice in user-interface and usability principles of design 98

o Experience with the design and implementation of web sites from concept to 99

deployment, including graphic design or general aesthetics 100

o Able to interpret and general meaningful reports from raw data including site usage 101

statistics and client registration data 102

o Able to generate skeletons for websites, including text and graphics 103

o Able to perform “reverse-engineering” of existing source codes in various systems 104

o Excellent written and oral communication skills in English 105

o Able to extrapolate specific technical solutions from vague or open-ended requirements 106

o Able to work independently, manage multiple projects within variable time frames 107

o Able to work collaboratively within an office team and to represent the Office of 108

University Writing needs when working with other IT Specialists campus-wide 109

Desirable: 110

o Understanding of RDBMS and SQL programming 111

o Ability to manage interfaces of closed-source, COTS, and RESTful applications 112

o Comfortable in manipulating various web development frameworks or platforms 113

o Awareness of techniques for deploying web resources to multiple platforms (cross-114

browser, Windows/Mac/Linux OS, smartphones, etc.) 115

o Interest in and ability to mentor undergraduate and graduate interns developing 116

content for the website117

Appendix G: Organizational Structure Auburn University: The APP Project – Draft for Discussion June 22, 2012

84

APPENDIX G: Organizational Structure 1

2

Office of University Writing Organization: 3

4

Figure 9: Office of University Writing Organization Structure

Appendix G: Organizational Structure Auburn University: The APP Project – Draft for Discussion June 22, 2012

85

Impacted Units Organization: 5

6

7

Figure 10: Impacted Units

Appendix H: Detailed Budget Auburn University: The APP Project – Draft for Discussion June 22, 2012

86

No. Action Items Budget Items 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017

1 Create a Coordinating Council with broad

based representation:

Meeting Support 600$ 600$ 600$ 600$ 600$ 600$

Industry Advisory Council 1,000$ 1,000$ 1,000$ 1,000$

2 Hire a person to direct the Career E-Portfolio

Project:

QEP Coordinator 34,450$ 68,900$ 68,900$ 68,900$ 68,900$

Tech, Instructional Technology - Job Code 30 47,580$ 47,580$ 47,580$ 47,580$

Specialist - Information Technology - Job Code 33 66,820$ 66,820$ 66,820$ 66,820$ 66,820$

Student work employee 2,808$ 5,616$ 5,616$ 5,616$ 5,616$ 5,616$

Graduate Assistant 0.5 position. 12 mo. 12,850$ 25,700$ 25,700$ 25,700$ 25,700$ 25,700$

Intern say 2@10 hrs. per week x 45 weeks 10,800$ 10,800$ 10,800$ 10,800$ 10,800$

Tutors say 3@20hrs per week for 30 weeks 21,600$ 21,600$ 21,600$ 21,600$ 21,600$

Start Up - Computer, Furniture, etc. 10,000$ 15,000$ 5,000$

Travel Budget 10,000$ 10,000$ 10,000$ 10,000$ 10,000$

Operations & Maintenance (Inc. Search Costs) 10,000$ 25,000$ 16,000$ 15,000$ 15,000$ 15,000$

Contingency sum for Construction Costs (4 - faculty

staff offices + GTA/Tutor Space) 120,000$

3 Expand existing units where Career E-

Portfolios will impact existing services:

Contingency for additional workstations, staff, GTA

support etc. 100,000$ 60,000$ 60,000$ 60,000$ 60,000$

4 Work with identified interested faculty and

programs to strengthen current efforts:

Invited Lecture/Workshop Program 5,000$ 5,000$ 5,000$

5 Identify software to be supported:

Assumption: Commercial E-Portfolio software

running on University-Owned servers.

Contingency for additional server space, licenses,

personnel etc. 140,000$ 100,000$ 100,000$ 100,000$ 100,000$

6 Create appropriate multi-media support

centers:

Equipment Grants 20,000$ 20,000$ 20,000$

7 Advertise and recruit additional programs and

individuals:

Marketing Materials 2,500$ 5,000$ 5,000$ 2,500$ 2,500$

8 Communicate with the Auburn University

community

Marketing Materials 5,000$ 5,000$ 5,000$ 5,000$ 5,000$

9 Institute assessment components necessary to

measure success and guide future decisions

Assessment Workshops 5,000$ 5,000$ 5,000$ 5,000$ 5,000$

External evaluator 4,000$ 4,000$ 4,000$ 4,000$

10 Institute awards and recognitions for exemplary

portfolios:

Awards 10,000$ 10,000$ 10,000$ 10,000$

11 Provide incentives for faculty serving as

mentors/advisors to individual students or

groups of students:

Grants, Awards 5,000$ 5,000$ 5,000$ 5,000$

12 Engage faculty in research and scholarship that

connects their interests to their work with e-

portfolios:

Conference Travel Grants 10,000$ 10,000$ 10,000$ 10,000$

Association Memberships 1,000$ 1,000$ 6,000$ 6,000$ 6,000$

Totals 161,258$ 494,086$ 509,616$ 503,616$ 481,116$ 481,116$

APPENDIX H: Detailed Budget 1

2