Premium
Web‐ or paper‐based portfolios: is there a difference?
Author(s) -
Driessen Erik W,
Muijtjens Arno M M,
Van Tartwijk Jan,
Van Der Vleuten Cees P M
Publication year - 2007
Publication title -
medical education
Language(s) - English
Resource type - Journals
SCImago Journal Rank - 1.776
H-Index - 138
eISSN - 1365-2923
pISSN - 0308-0110
DOI - 10.1111/j.1365-2923.2007.02859.x
Subject(s) - portfolio , quality (philosophy) , presentation (obstetrics) , web application , psychology , significant difference , computer science , medical education , medicine , world wide web , business , surgery , physics , finance , quantum mechanics
Objective To determine the differential effects of a paper‐based versus a web‐based portfolio in terms of portfolio quality, user‐friendliness and student motivation. Methods An experimental design was used to compare Year 1 medical students' reflective portfolios. The portfolios differed in presentation medium only (i.e. web‐based versus paper‐based). Content analysis, a student questionnaire and mentor interviews were used to evaluate portfolio quality, user‐friendliness and student motivation. A total of 92 portfolios were scored independently by 2 raters using a portfolio quality‐rating instrument. Results Portfolio structure, quality of reflection and quality of evidence showed no significant effects of presentation medium. Multi‐level analysis showed a significant effect for student motivation: web‐based portfolios scored 0.39 more than paper‐based portfolios ( P < 0.05; effect size 0.76). The mentors reported no differences in portfolio quality, except that there were more visuals in web‐based portfolios. Students spent significantly more time preparing the web‐based than the paper‐based portfolios (15.4 hours versus 12.2 hours; t = 2.1, P < 0.05; effect size 0.46). The 2 student groups did not differ significantly in terms of their satisfaction with the portfolio. The mentors perceived the web‐based portfolios as more user‐friendly. Conclusions The web‐based portfolios were found to enhance students' motivation, were more user‐friendly for mentors, and delivered the same content quality compared with paper‐based portfolios. This suggests that web‐based presentation may promote acceptance of portfolios by students and teachers alike.