English (United Kingdom)

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/featured_content/oa?rat=en

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/highlighted_journal/

Global: Zendy Plus annual

Presents the access of premium content as premium feature

Premium Content

Presents the keyphrase highlighting as premium feature

Keyphrase Highlighting

Presents the summarisation as premium feature

Summarisation

Insights

Presents the pdf analysis as premium feature

PDF Analysis

Presents the zaia usage as premium feature

ZAIA

Global: Zendy Plus monthly

Global: Zendy Tools annual

Global: Zendy Tools monthly

Global: Zendy Free Plan

Portfolios have long served as a vehicle for students to showcase achievements that could not be appropriately presented in written form, such as for art or architecture disciplines. Recently, information technology (IT) has provided tools for portfolios to be stored, accessed, updated, and presented conveniently as evidence of student learning and achievement (Chau & Cheng, 2010; Gaide, 2006). Although there is no generally agreed upon definition of electronic portfolios (e Portfolios; Hallam & Creagh, 2010), an e-portfolio usually comprises a selection of specific artefacts to showcase students' learning processes, outcomes, and reflections (Gaide, 2006). The internet, providing an added benefit of portability, affords the opportunity to make learning visible, to present a wide range of student achievements apart from academic attainments (Abrami & Barret, 2005), and to satisfy programme requirements for those seeking employment (Strudler & Wetzel, 2008). When creating e-portfolios, student teachers have become more capable technically had had better disposition towards adopting technology for creating and maintaining portfolios (Herner-Patnode and Lee, 2009, Thang, Lee & Zulkifli, 2012). Similarly, English teachers found that creating e-portfolio enabled them to develop their professional and information technology competencies (Bala, Mansor, Stapa & Zhkaria, 2012) whilst student teachers regarded the e-portfolio platform easy to use and gave them a sense of editorship and promote discussion (Chuang, 2010). Apart from technical advantages, the implementation of e-portfolios promotes efficacious pedagogical practices (e.g., reflective thinking; Orland-Barak, 2005). Goldsby and Fazal (2000) observed that student teachers who created e-portfolios were not only more likely to use technology in their teaching, but were also more effective at creating meaningful learning experiences for their pupils using technology. Students feel more confident and positive towards their learning when using e-portfolios (Hussein, 2009; Shroff, Deneen & Ng, 2011; Wright, Stallworth, & Ray, 2002; Zhang, Olfman, & Ractham, 2007). E-portfolios are also used as a resource for helping preservice teachers not only document their work towards meeting professional standards, but also reflect on their teaching practices (Abrami & Barret, 2005; Ayala, 2006, Chuang, 2008, Sung, Chang, Yu & Chang, 2008), in particular, reflection-of-practice and reflection-on-practice (Makinster, Barab, Harwood, & Anderson, 2006). However, there are also problems when creating e-portfolios, e.g., required computer and internet access, and lost personal time spent on assisting those with technical problems when unfamiliar systems are used (Shepherd & Hannafin, 2011), and were frustrated whilst formatting and sharing portfolios (Shepherd & Bolliger, 2011). Implementing e-portfolios is very costly. Moreover, they directly compete with new communication technologies, e.g., mobile phones; (Evans & Schwen, 2006) that students are comfortable with (Evans & Powell, 2007). The Research Framework User-friendliness and user acceptance of e-portfolio systems are two integral elements for successful implementation, as users would become frustrated and simply abandon a confusing system (Jafari, 2004). The Technology Acceptance Model (TAM) seems to be an appropriate model for understanding conceptual issues related to e-portfolio use. It suggests that the success of a system can be determined by user acceptance, measured by three factors: perceived usefulness (PU), perceived ease-of-use (PEOU), and attitudes towards usage (ATU) of the system (Davis, 1989). A number of external variables could affect PU and PEOU. PU is the degree to which a person believes that using a particular system would enhance his or her performance whilst PEOU refers to the degree to which a person believes that he or she could use the particular system without effort. …

issues in informing science and information technology/issues in informing science and information technology education

Applying a Modified Technology Acceptance Model to Qualitatively Analyse the Factors Affecting E-Portfolio Implementation for Student Teachers’ in Field Experience Placements