Explanation of the Framework
The framework is divided into six components that are vital to the successful implementation of ePortfolios by faculty over time. These components (Awareness, Motivation, Commitment, Resources, Leadership, and Evaluation) reflect important diffusion of innovation elements put forth by Everett M. Rogers and Donald P. Ely, prominent scholars in systemic change. Awareness is defined as professional knowledge of the pedagogical benefits of ePortfolios and corresponds with Roger’s element of knowledge as well as Ely’s condition of dissatisfaction with the status quo. Motivation is defined as the identification and/or presence of intrinsic and/or extrinsic incentives for using ePortfolios and corresponds with Roger’s element of persuasion as well as Ely’s conditions of dissatisfaction with the status quo and rewards or incentives. Commitment is defined as the decision, as a result of value recognition, to implement ePortfolios and corresponds with Roger’s element of decision as well as Ely’s conditions of participation and commitment. Resources is defined as identified resources to assist in ePortfolio implementation and corresponds with Roger’s element of implementation as well as Ely’s conditions of sufficient knowledge and skills, availability of time, and availability of resources. Leadership is defined as the necessary leadership supports in place to sustain use of ePortfolios and corresponds with Roger’s element of implementation as well as Ely’s conditions of leadership. Evaluation is defined as the data-based examination of ePortfolio use to inform improvements to future iterations and corresponds with Roger’s element of confirmation.
The framework was built to the convey the idea that it was kept general with the intention to enable anyone in any context considering implementing portfolios or already in the process of implementation to use it to assess the workgroup’s current status in the implementation process, as well as critical next steps. The framework is intended as modular, meaning that the components can be considered in any order as needed. In addition to defining each component, a noncomprehensive list of strategies to enact each component, as well as key stakeholders that can influence the progress on that component are provided. In column four of each framework component, you may notice a scale for rating the current implementation status of the component. This scale is provided for users to assess where the workgroup is in regards to each component and identify next steps to focus on in the implementation process. The intent of the 3-point rating scale is for the workgroup (e.g. organization, department, or program level) to take a pulse of the group’s current implementation status. For example, a rating of one would identify a component as a major priority in planning efforts, whereas a three would indicate the component is of low priority. Through such a quick check, action planning can then be based in top priorities.
The framework was built to the convey the idea that it was kept general with the intention to enable anyone in any context considering implementing portfolios or already in the process of implementation to use it to assess the workgroup’s current status in the implementation process, as well as critical next steps. The framework is intended as modular, meaning that the components can be considered in any order as needed. In addition to defining each component, a noncomprehensive list of strategies to enact each component, as well as key stakeholders that can influence the progress on that component are provided. In column four of each framework component, you may notice a scale for rating the current implementation status of the component. This scale is provided for users to assess where the workgroup is in regards to each component and identify next steps to focus on in the implementation process. The intent of the 3-point rating scale is for the workgroup (e.g. organization, department, or program level) to take a pulse of the group’s current implementation status. For example, a rating of one would identify a component as a major priority in planning efforts, whereas a three would indicate the component is of low priority. Through such a quick check, action planning can then be based in top priorities.
Click the "Buy Now" button below to purchase the framework
This site and the knowledge contained within were created through a joint research effort between
Samantha J. Blevins and Jennifer M. Brill at Virginia Tech and are protected under copyright law.
© 2013
Samantha J. Blevins and Jennifer M. Brill at Virginia Tech and are protected under copyright law.
© 2013