I thought this was going to be a waste of time:How portfolio construction can support student learning from project-based experiences

Turns, Jennifer; Cuddihy, Elisabeth; Guan, Zhiwei

doi:10.7771/1541-5015.1125

Cited by 18 publications

(16 citation statements)

References 25 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…This current study was one activity in a five-year NSF-funded investigation of the educational significance of engineering undergraduates constructing professional portfolios, with an initial focus on the use of portfolios to support students' knowledge integration within and across courses. Previous publications related to this research include Guan and Turns (2007), Lappenbush and Turns (2007), and Turns, Cuddihy, and Guan (2010). One recurrent theme in this research trajectory, particularly in activities investigating cross-curricular portfolios, was students' self-report of engaging in reflection on topics related to personal and professional identity.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 93%

Constructing Professional Portfolios: Sense‐Making and Professional Identity Development for Engineering Undergraduates

Eliot

Turns

2011

J of Engineering Edu

Self Cite

161

123

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

a BACKGROUNDWhile previously researching the educational impacts of single-course and cross-curricular portfolios, investigators noted that student participants described their portfolio activities as positively impacting their growing identities as engineering professionals. These impacts were seen particularly in studies regarding cross-curricular portfolios. PURPOSE (HYPOTHESIS)This study was designed to explicitly investigate identity-related impacts of cross-curricular portfolios and to explore the processes students employed during portfolio construction to identify themselves as budding engineers and as future professionals. DESIGN/METHODEngineering undergraduate students attended four weekly workshops where they wrote a professional statement, selected artifacts that demonstrated their engineering abilities, and wrote annotations that explained how the artifacts served as concrete examples of their claims for professional standing. Online surveys were administered at each workshop asking participants about their ongoing experiences of creating their portfolios and sharing these portfolios with their peers. RESULTSAnalysis of the survey responses revealed that participants had two primary frames of reference for the construction of professional identity during portfolio creation. The external frame of reference focused on students' understanding of the expectations of potential employers and recruiters. The internal frame of reference, which accounted for twice as many responses as the external frame coding, focused on students' emerging realizations of their own values and interests as professional engineers. CONCLUSIONSAs engineering educators, we often support the external frame of reference in terms of building professional identity. We need to provide students with opportunities to engage the internal frame of reference with which our participants were particularly concerned.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 93%

Constructing Professional Portfolios: Sense‐Making and Professional Identity Development for Engineering Undergraduates

Eliot

Turns

2011

J of Engineering Edu

Self Cite

161

123

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Students need to not only have a chance to read an explanatory rationale and view expert modeling but also reflect on and articulate the attainment value from their own perspectives. Reflecting on the attainment value of problem and project-based learning experiences may cause students to raise their estimation of the attainment value of the experiences ( Turns, Cuddihy, & Guan, 2010 ). Furthermore, reflection in PBL can lead to enhanced learning and transfer ( Hmelo-Silver, 2004 ; Kolodner et al, 2003 ; B. Y.…”

Section: Scaffolds That Establish Task Valuementioning

confidence: 99%

A Framework for Designing Scaffolds That Improve Motivation and Cognition

Belland

Kim

Hannafin

2013

Educational Psychologist

211

183

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

A problematic, yet common, assumption among educational researchers is that when teachers provide authentic, problem-based experiences, students will automatically be engaged. Evidence indicates that this is often not the case. In this article, we discuss (a) problems with ignoring motivation in the design of learning environments, (b) problem-based learning and scaffolding as one way to help, (c) how scaffolding has strayed from what was originally equal parts motivational and cognitive support, and (d) a conceptual framework for the design of scaffolds that can enhance motivation as well as cognitive outcomes. We propose guidelines for the design of computer-based scaffolds to promote motivation and engagement while students are solving authentic problems. Remaining questions and suggestions for future research are then discussed.

show abstract

“…However, project-based learning is typically more structured than problem-based learning in that its deliverable is more well-specified (Savery, 2006). At the end of project-based learning, students typically produce the target product, and then engage in some sort of reflection, which can include the creation of a portfolio (Turns, Cuddihy, & Guan, 2010).…”

Section: Project-based Learningmentioning

confidence: 99%

Context of Use of Computer-Based Scaffolding

Belland

2016

Instructional Scaffolding in STEM Education

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The contexts in which computer-based scaffolding is used can vary widely. Such variation is by learner population (e.g., grade level and other characteristics such as achievement level and socioeconomic status), subject matter (i.e., science, technology, engineering, and mathematics), and instructional model with which scaffolding is used (e.g., design-based learning and problem-based learning). I describe these variations, and note accompanying variations in effect size estimates. Notably, scaffolding had its strongest impact when students were (a) at the adult level, (b) engaged in project-based learning or problem solving and (c) from traditional learner populations. Rationale for this ChapterTo begin this chapter, it is important to discuss the need for a consideration of the context of use of computer-based scaffolding. After all, in its original definition, scaffolding was provided on a one-to-one basis to toddlers who engaged in unstructured problem-solving (Wood, Bruner, & Ross, 1976). All structure to the problem-solving activity was provided by the scaffolding process itself. This was practical when there was one teacher for each student, but lost its practicality as a single source of support when using scaffolding in formal schooling. After all, when a teacher can work on a one-to-one basis with one student for an unlimited time span, the teacher can continually assess what structure is needed, and provide it. This is hard to beat in terms of effectiveness. But in formal school settings, teachers very rarely have this opportunity. So, as researchers turned their attention to how instruction could be centered on problem-solving in formal education, it was important to think about additional ways to provide structure to student learning in 56 3 Context of Use of Computer-Based Scaffolding this context (Palincsar & Brown, 1984;Schmidt, Rotgans, & Yew, 2011). This was often accomplished by pairing scaffolding with formal problem-centered instructional models (e.g., inquiry-based learning and problem-based learning; Crippen & Archambault, 2012;Hmelo-Silver, Duncan, & Chinn, 2007;Kolodner et al., 2003). Such formal, problem-centered instructional models needed to be paired with support for students' reasoning abilities, and instructional scaffolding (one-to-one and, later, computer-based and peer scaffolding) fit such a need nicely.A natural question is whether the specific problem-centered instructional model with which scaffolding is used influences scaffolding's efficacy. This is an empirical question. It is beyond the scope of this book to investigate variations in the efficacy of one-to-one scaffolding and peer scaffolding based on the specific problem-centered instructional model with which it is used. But I do investigate how the efficacy of computer-based scaffolding varies based on the problem-centered instructional model with which it is used.Deploying scaffolding in formal education environments also entailed an expansion of the age groups with which scaffolding was used. Computer-based...

show abstract

I thought this was going to be a waste of time:How portfolio construction can support student learning from project-based experiences

Cited by 18 publications

References 25 publications

Constructing Professional Portfolios: Sense‐Making and Professional Identity Development for Engineering Undergraduates

Constructing Professional Portfolios: Sense‐Making and Professional Identity Development for Engineering Undergraduates

A Framework for Designing Scaffolds That Improve Motivation and Cognition

Context of Use of Computer-Based Scaffolding

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About