Keywords

2.1 Introduction

Although ePortfolios are not new and have been around for quite a few years, there are many benefits of using them, particularly the current cloud-based systems. ePortfolios allow students to conduct a range of activities, including self-reflection on their current learning, access to their reflections in past courses and continuing access once they leave university (Oakley, Pegrum, & Johnston, 2014). One definition of ePortfolios is a digitized collection of artefacts that can include various items such as demonstrations, resources, and accomplishments. These can represent either an individual, or a group, or perhaps even an institution (Lorenzo & Ittelson, 2005). ePortfolios allow users to add a large variety of artefacts, for example: sound clips, images in various formats, videos, and other graphic representations such as PowerPoint slides and spreadsheets (Botterill, Allan, & Brooks, 2008; Oakley et al., 2014).

In 2016, Griffith University made the move towards a university-wide ePortfolio system after a successful process of review, and decided to implement the PebblePad personal learning environment, a United Kingdom based system. This software was decided upon via a collaborative selection process, including the identification of requirements, conducting a desktop audit and then writing five authentic scenarios. These were given to various vendors who were then able to provide authentic ways of using which then included giving demonstrations of the product with the scenario. This allowed for greater authenticity when deciding on the one platform. Once the scenarios were created stakeholder feedback was gained via various methods, collated and finally a recommendation to university leadership was completed (Blair, Campbell, & Duffy, 2017). Academic and professional staff from across the university were given multiple opportunities to provide feedback prior to the final decision being made. After that time a university-wide ePortfolio Working Party was formed to oversee the implementation (Blair et al., 2017) with several representatives from Griffith Sciences involved. Thus, at the beginning of 2017 the new system was rolled out across the university to a growing innovator group. These innovators were academics from across the university, including Griffith Sciences. Interestingly, this ePortfolio project builds on a previous project in 2008 and then a review of ePortfolios in 2011 (Coffey & Ashford-Rowe, 2014), which means that ePortfolios themselves are not new to the university, however, a new central system was required. The Innovators project was conducted during 2017, with innovators selected to be early adopters of the technology. This allowed for the initial group of innovators to be given a round of training in late 2016 (Campbell, Bourke, Trahar, & Nisova, 2017). The aims of this initial innovators project were varied, but they did include:

  • Evidencing of tasks completed, both in class and for course assessment;

  • Peer review;

  • Student collaborative projects;

  • Evidencing of tasks completed in various co-curricular programs;

  • Evidencing of reflective practice in various ways; and

  • Allowing for easy and collated evidencing of employability skills (Campbell et al., 2017).

As Griffith Sciences (one of four university academic groups, which operate very similar to a Faculty) was looking to improve and modernize its programs the university-wide implementation of a new ePortfolio system, PebblePad, placed the Academic Group at the forefront of the implementation. Academics across the group expressed interest in being involved and were encouraged to complete an Expression of Interest process for further involvement and support (Allan, Campbell, & Green, 2018). Using a design-based research methodology, the Sciences project initially involved 24 projects, with one project having already begun. Engineering had the largest numbers of projects involved in the project with 13, and Natural Sciences had nine projects involved. As the number of projects increased throughout the year, Information and Communication Technology ended up with five projects in various courses being taught throughout the year (Allan et al., 2018).

2.1.1 Framework for the Project

The ADDIE model was used as an underlying framework (Culatta, 2018) and was used to support the innovators’ project. The model contains several phases including analysis, design, development, and implementation and finally evaluation phases. It is important to note that these phases do not need to be implemented in a linear way, but there can be movement back and forward through the various phases as necessary (Gustafson & Branch, 2002). Although this is a reasonably traditional instructional design model, it is also student centered as well as goal orientated, thus assuming that the outcomes of the project can be measured in a reliable way (Branch & Merrill, 2012). Aside from being innovative, it is also authentic and even inspirational in the way it can be adapted (Branch, 2009).

The innovator academics who were using PebblePad for the first time in their courses were early adopters and thus were given support to assist in the design, development, and implementation life cycle through centralized and localized support. Using this model has allowed academics from across the university to be supported and also ensured there was a strong evaluation phase (Campbell et al., 2017).

2.2 Literature Review

There are several advantages to using ePortfolio systems in higher education. For example, students are able to critically reflect “on one’s learning and for compiling and demonstrating evidence of learning and skill development” (Krause, 2006, p. 1). This also allows students to make connections among their learning experiences which enables the transfer of knowledge and skills to other contexts (Light, Chen, & Ittelson, 2012) in the future. PebblePad also allows students to reflect on what they have learnt, thus helping with memory recall as well. One study to assist with critical reflection using ePortfolios reported positive results when using various classroom strategies to help students (Jenson, 2011). This included innovative use of in-class questioning, allowing students to reflect on why they were learning this and how this will assist the students.

Other researchers have focused on students developing the skills of reflexivity as a tool to enhance self-regulation and to critique one’s own learning (Masters, 2013; Munday, Rowley, & Polly, 2017). Baronak (2011) emphasized that “when students participate in the selection, discussion, and evaluation of their work in an ePortfolio, they begin to think of themselves as learners” (p. 4). When introduced at Griffith Sciences, it was suggested to staff there were many ways of using ePortfolios to assist in student learning and thus the ways they were used varied considerably.

With the definition of ePortfolios already provided, it is worth noting that they are also beneficial for students to use ePortfolios for assessment tasks where they can contribute various artefacts of an electronic nature. PebblePad is beneficial to use as it is not just an ePortfolio system but a versatile personal learning environment where “students can record evidence of learning in different digital formats and can easily share that evidence with peers and tutors” (The University of Edinburgh, 2017, p. 1).

Using ePortfolios can help courses and programs align with both institutional requirements and outside professional bodies who have professional standards requirements (Luera, Brunvard, & Marra, 2016). Likewise, a Griffith University paper reports the professional standards-based portfolio in a positive light and suggests they support education students though their career, as a lifelong investment (Smart, Sim, & Finger, 2015). Finally, Slade (2015) suggests that students have a mature outlook of using ePortfolios for both reflective practice as well as evidencing their competency of required tasks. This suggests that evidencing practice over time will be beneficial to students when they go out into their professions.

Specifically, PebblePad is more than just an ePortfolio system as it is more specifically a personal learning environment, or platform. One reason is because PebblePad has interactive workbooks, templates that are customizable, built in frames as well as activity logs and collections (Pebble Learning, 2018). Since the implementation, academics from Griffith Sciences have adopted many of the types of uses of PebblePad, however there has been little reported research in this area. Having said that Masters (2013) reports on students using ePortfolios to create and store various assets while studying teacher education. Brooks (2017) reports on students using PebblePad in music education which allowed students to showcase “their identities as both musicians and teachers while demonstrating the ability to use information technologies” (Brooks, 2017) as part of their university studies. Now, however, some of the Griffith University research studies are being published in various ways, including an implementation in Aviation (Campbell & Korf, 2018).

2.3 Methodology

Data collection for this project was a part of the university-wide implementation. Ethics approval was gained for the entire project for both student and staff data collection for the period 2017–2018. This included both pre- and post-student surveys as well as potential interviews to be conducted with staff and students. Data collection for staff consisted of a post implementation survey and potential interview questions that could be conducted. At Griffith Sciences, the professional staff involved with the project conducted interviews with the staff at the end of the first year of implementation.

Ethics approval was also gained to use the student data provided by the user log within PebblePad as well as assignment submissions for research purposes (this was via the use of an opt-in question for the students in the survey). Data collected also included the PebblePad user statistics and login counts. The student survey that was included in the ethics approval process included a list of core questions as well as additional questions that could be asked if relevant to the course/students. Training statistics were also collected and have been reported below. Data in the form of usage statistics has been provided including general university-wide usage, which means it is not specific to Sciences. These statistics are shown below until June, 2018 which is the latest data collected.

In Trimester 1, all Innovators (academics from across the groups involved in the project) were asked if they could distribute the survey to their students. They were also given the option of asking extra questions if they wished (according to the ethics approved protocol). If the Innovators required different questions, an ethics amendment was obtained. In Trimester 1, 21 surveys were distributed across all four Academic Groups and Learning Futures. A total of 237 student responses were obtained from across the university.

In Trimester 2, there were 11 surveys distributed across the innovators courses in all four Academic Groups and Learning Futures. A total of 588 student responses were obtained from across the university. Students across Sciences were invited to participate in a general survey with 68 responses.

Data from the staff survey is presented briefly below. Eighteen staff from the Innovators group completed the survey in October, 2018. The questions involved Likert Scale questions, and a mixture of open-ended and closed questions. Staff who completed the survey were not asked to identify which Academic Group they were from.

2.4 Results

Results presented below include usage data and statistics on the overall university uptake of PebblePad. Griffith Sciences projects are also mentioned in this section as well as university-wide training results. Then, results from the student surveys have been presented from both Trimester 1 and Trimester 2, 2017.

A total of 118 academic Innovators participated in the project in 2017, with a total of 23 from Sciences. As can be seen in Table 2.1, Griffith Sciences had a good participation rate with 13 courses in Trimester 1, 10 in Trimester 2, and then two courses in Trimester 3, which was conducted over the summer in 2017/2018.

Table 2.1 Uses for PebblePad across the various schools throughout 2017
Full size table

The majority of the projects in 2017 were within the Engineering discipline with PebblePad being used in practical electronics, engineering science, international engineering practice, engineering design practice, project management principles as well as others. There were a range of class sizes that implemented ePortfolios (with the largest being 306). The main uses of PebblePad in Engineering were to develop employability skills and practices, as a tool to support reflective thinking, for use within engineering laboratories as part of laboratory reports or to gather laboratory results, to support group projects and also as a way to document final projects and milestones. It was also used for field trips, industry field visits, to complete weekly activities and assist in the retention of students (Allan et al., 2018).

There were also a noteworthy number of projects (n = 9) coming from the Natural Sciences in 2017. Natural Sciences also had the largest number of students with more than 1300 using PebblePad as well as the largest class sizes (n = 479). There were a variety of courses and topics involved including bio-techniques laboratory, biological systems, chemistry, physics, forensics, and the professional practice in science (capstone) course. There were also several program-wide initiatives within the Natural Sciences which included the professional practice stream in forensics, the Bachelor of Science (Advanced) and the professional stream of the Graduate Diploma of Clinical Physiology. The main uses of ePortfolios in Natural Sciences were to embed employability and professional skills across a program-wide initiative, to develop laboratory skills and laboratory thinking, to support reflective activities, to scaffold laboratory experiences, and to connect laboratory activities throughout and across a program (Allan et al., 2018).

In Information and Communication Technology, there were five courses that used PebblePad and this involved more than 700 students while Environment used it in four of their courses.

2.4.1 Logins Per Month

Student logins varied across each month, which was directly related to the academic calendar. For example, in March logins increased dramatically and again in July which is the beginning of the trimester. They dropped in June which was during the mid-year break. In October, they decreased as the trimester had ended and November and December were summer trimester with a very limited number of uses. This is depicted in Fig. 2.1.

Fig. 2.1
figure 1

Total number of logins per month from January, 2017 to December, 2017

Full size image

2.4.2 Assessment Submissions

Student submissions increased during the trimester with a peak in April and then later in June (see Fig. 2.2) which corresponds with the total login graph peaks. The various workspaces also increased each month (a workspace is similar to a course-site in an LMS and is where resources are distributed and submissions can be collected for feedback and marking). Interesting to note in Fig. 2.2 is the submission statistics peaked at various times during the trimester while the ATLAS statistics increased in a more continuous way (see Fig. 2.2).

Fig. 2.2
figure 2

A comparison between the assignment submission figures and the ATLAS statistics showing the various types of workspaces that have increased in number each month for Trimester 1, 2017

Full size image

The total active users increased each trimester with the average login duration remaining about the same time, from 82 to 86 min. The total active users increased from the beginning of June, 2017, at 5136 to 14,416 at the beginning of March, 2018. This is shown in detail by month in Table 2.2. This gradual increase points toward a successful implementation across the university.

Table 2.2 Total logins and active users from June 2017 to March 2018
Full size table

2.4.3 Asset Usage

There are numerous types of assets that have been used within PebblePad. As can be seen in Table 2.3, the Asset usage has also changed over time with a large increase in template use. This may be due to the increase in numbers of staff and students using PebblePad during the year.

Table 2.3 Shows asset usage increasing over time for various assets within PebblePad
Full size table

2.4.4 Staff Training Sessions

Training was offered both centrally and across Griffith Sciences. Table 2.4 shows the number of staff who attended central training in 2017 with 50 staff members from Griffith Sciences attending the various sessions.

Table 2.4 Unique attendances by Academic Group
Full size table

There were various types of training, including introductory training, learning to teach using reflection, and training on creating workbooks and activity sheets as well as interactive resources. After this training was conducted, a final session was created by the central team and implemented which was on the assessment life cycle through the use of PebblePad. Table 2.5 shows the numbers of staff who attended the various training sessions as well as the number of Griffith Sciences staff who attended these sessions.

Table 2.5 Total attendance for each workshop offered across all the Academic Groups in 2017 and with Griffith Sciences staff
Full size table

The sessions were well attended by the Griffith Sciences academics as the 50 who attended central training sessions, went to more than one session with a total of 79 sessions attended by the 50 staff. Extra training sessions were conducted by professional staff in Griffith Sciences, one on “helping students reflect” and the other on “creating an online study guide”. These sessions were also well attended.

2.4.5 Academic Survey Results

From the 18 academics who completed the survey in October 2017, they report using PebblePad in a variety of ways, including asking students to reflect on their learning (21.05%) and completing the required templates (workbooks) (14.47%). Other uses include asking the students to submit (“shared”) assessment (13.16%) and receive feedback from teaching staff (9.21%) as well as track their learning journal through their program of study (9.21%).

Sixty seven percent of the respondents found PebblePad easy to use overall, while 66% of respondents also stated they needed significant assistance to begin using PebblePad with all respondents receiving technical support from their Blended Learning Advisors/Educational Designers (BLA/EDs) while using the platform. Staff also thought PebblePad is a useful tool for students with all but one respondent either somewhat agreeing or agreeing (94.41%).

From the 18 academics who completed the survey, 83.33% of staff received training in PebblePad with 33.33% (n = 12) attending the introductory training that was conducted through Learning Futures while 16% received individualized training through their Academic Group. Academic staff state that PebblePad met their expectations in terms of providing a teaching and learning solution (89%). Staff state that it provided this learning in a variety of ways including:

  • One stop shop for assessment submissions.

  • It encouraged students to gather information and consider how it could be used to assist their overall learning.

  • With the direction my industry is going towards, what PebblePad can do to give our students that edge, provides them the tools with what they need to succeed.

  • Workbook ensured that student reflections, skills acquisition and professional development were structured and focused.

  • Students did not need to carry or remember a physical manual. Everything was in one easily accessible location for them.

  • As a first go at using it, it allowed students to reflect on their laboratories and I found it easy to navigate and assess the students work. I am intending to make wider use of PebblePad in my program and will be implementing new uses soon I hope.

Importantly all 18 (100%), of the survey respondents plan to use PebblePad in their teaching in the future. Reasons as to why included:

  • Best platform for monitoring students work and progress with ability to provide instant feedback or reminders.

  • It was helpful for the specific tasks outlined above.

  • The worksheet function is useful.

  • Gain benefit of investment into teaching resources, see benefit for students and marking.

Staff were asked what other ways they would like to use PebblePad in the future. Answers were varied and included:

  • Would like to be able to share student work in lectures and tutorials and display work on the lecture or tutorial screen.

  • Text match.

  • Have MCQ type tests in there would be fantastic. Setup a workbook so it is al-most like an adventure. For example the workbook would provide information about a set area of a topic and then MCQs could be used before the students could move on to the next activity. Something like that would be amazing and also create for Case-based Learning activities too.

  • Probably will expand into my other capstone 4th year course (currently using in my 2nd year course).

  • As a means of keeping a learning journal and as a means of allowing peer review of material amongst student pairs within a course.

  • Tracking competencies; reflections.

  • Track learning throughout a program.

  • Assignment submission.

As can be seen from the above comments, staff are thinking about other ways they can use PebblePad in the future. These include implementing in other courses, reflections, and assignment submission. These activities will be well supported by both colleagues and support staff to implement.

2.4.6 Student Feedback

The 1021SCG chemistry student survey received the most responses with 18 completed online surveys, while across all the Sciences, the General Sciences survey received 17 separate responses with responders from a variety of courses. Students were generally less than 24 years of age with 94% (n = 16) from the General Sciences survey and 59% (n = 10) were female. From the 1021SCG students, they were all in first year and ages ranged from 78% (n = 14) who were younger than 24 and 22% (n = 4) who were between 25 and 29 years of age. Of those students who completed the survey, 56.5% (n = 10) were female and 44.5% (n = 8) were male.

In both trimesters, students were comfortable using online technologies for educational purposes with a mean of between 4.11 to 4.65 of the three surveys that were analyzed. Students also felt confident when using new online technologies for educational purposes with a mean that is slightly lower, with 3.72 for 1021SCG, 4.18 for the Trimester 1 General Sciences (GS) cohort and 4 for the T2 survey. This is shown in Table 2.6, along with the lower result about finding PebblePad easier to use. These results ranged from 3/09 to 3.88. Data suggests that perhaps more training and scaffolding would be beneficial, with students in Trimester 2 not particularly finding it easy to use PebblePad through Learning@Griffith. However, there were not reported accounts of students contacting IT for support due to broken links.

Table 2.6 Students thoughts about using new technologies and PebblePad
Full size table

2.4.7 Student Ways of Using PebblePad

Overall, students used PebblePad in many ways during the trimester. The most common uses are to submit the required workbook, receive feedback from teaching staff and reflect on one’s learning. As can be seen in Table 2.7, the percentages varied slightly from each group, with sharing work with fellow classmates, improving from 2.70% in Trimester 1 to 7.98% in Trimester 2.

Table 2.7 Students ways of using PebblePad across the cohorts that were surveyed, along with the number count of the various ways
Full size table

As it is important to present the student voice, thus the following results are from the student survey. They were asked what worked well and what areas could be improved. Students reported various aspects of PebblePad worked well. These include:

  • Sharing information, and submitting.

  • Easy to submit.

  • It helped me reflect on the course content.

  • Lecturer can easily mark homework on PebblePad.

  • Having a structured layout for assessment.

  • The assessment and editing in template.

  • The assessment was split into multiple parts which made it easier to understand.

  • The required PebblePad submissions that I had to complete were easy to find.

  • It was easy to save documents and keep track of what you had done.

  • The fact that it is all in one place, and is relatively easy to use.

Griffith Sciences’ students found the workbooks helpful with one student commenting “the workbooks were very easy to use and helped me focus on the work I was learning”. Another student was very specific on how keeping a reflective blog was beneficial by stating “writing a reflective Blog for 1018ENG helped me to make connections with what I was learning and where I would use it in the future”.

The students surveyed felt that various aspects could be improved. These included:

  • The text editor.

  • The information given for the assignment sections were vague and not enough in my opinion.

  • The tool of copying and pasting the content from outside tool.

  • Marks are much better if they’re all in the same place (such as all in PebblePad, or all at L@G), PebblePad is all templating but no real personalization, and I find it RAM heavy.

  • Use keyboard shortcuts, more intuitive and easier to navigate layout and the ability to open new tabs with command or control.

  • Typing properties and minimising windows—the content sometimes shifts and disrupts my workflow.

Interestingly, some of the aspects students felt could be improved have been improved in the system since last year. This includes the text editor problems, and thus it is expected fewer students will find some of these aspects hampering their work. One student commented:

PebblePad can be a good tool for collecting notes in one place. It is like a less versatile, but more specific (can be a good thing), digital notebook like OneNote or EndNote. The difference is, the structure of PebblePad is set by teaching staff and able to be monitored by them, to keep track of student’s progress.

While another student commented “I found the online workbooks to be a good idea. It saves printing out innumerous pieces of paper, and allows teaching staff a real-time view of how their students are handling the content”.

2.5 Discussion and Implications for Academics

From the results, it is clear that staff were well supported across the university during the implementation. Training was provided from both the central unit as well as from Griffith Sciences learning and teaching team (Campbell & Blair, 2018). Professional staff in Sciences also supported staff in a variety of other ways, which have been outlined in other chapters. It is evident that continued support is needed for staff across the group both centrally and from within the group in the future. This will allow staff to feel comfortable implementing the new tool and ensure that if there are any problems they receive assistance quickly.

Student results are mixed with how supported they feel in using the tool. Thus, it is beneficial for academic staff to know this and to ensure that in the future are given clear instructions, as well as support on how to complete technical tasks. Overall, students felt positive that they were able to keep their work in the one place and that it was easy to locate various documents, tasks, and assignments. This is also in line with other studies (Brooks, 2017; Masters, 2013).

Another of the positives coming from the implementation was the number of academics from across Sciences using PebblePad, and the variety of ways they are using it. It is recommended that staff continue to use PebblePad as a complete package in a large number of ways across a range of courses. It is hoped this will continue to increase in time, once it is implemented across more courses within the various programs in Griffith Sciences.

Although some students found aspects of PebblePad frustrating, it is worth noting that PebblePad staff are very responsive to feedback. They are continually working on, and they have actually provided solutions to some of the minor problems that created frustration to students throughout 2017. This includes the text editor which is now easier to use.

2.6 Conclusion

The implementation across the university was very successful with over 20,000 unique active users by June, 2018, which is a dramatic increase of users since the beginning of February, 2017. Although this chapter reports on the initial university implementation data and specifically focuses on the Griffith Sciences Group, it should be noted that continual usage and implementation improvement over time is occurring across the university in all four academic groups.

Overall, the Griffith Sciences Blended Learning Model assisted in the implementation across the faculty with staff being well supported in implementing PebblePad with their students. Academics generally focused their uses on employability as well as reflection (Allan et al., 2018), with reflection, being important in developing both graduate attributes and lifelong learning skills. Campbell and Korf (2018) in their study also reported students using PebblePad for reflection to attempt to improve specific skills. Another use reported by students was submitting an assessment task to then receive feedback. Many academics required students to complete templates or workbooks in their courses which meant they were able to provide scaffolding for student learning. This was well supported by academics as it allowed students to keep their course notes in the one place, which students reported finding very useful.

With PebblePad now being used across the Sciences Group, it is deemed as a success as its use is widespread, particularly in both Engineering and Natural Sciences. However, smaller programs are also using it in innovative ways which have been reported in later chapters in this book.