EDUCATIONAL PORTFOLIO – PERSONALITY-ORIENTED TECHNOLOGY IN TRAINING OF STUDENTS

Actuality of the problem

The portfolio as a term in pedagogy literature has been entered from other fields like arts, photography, business, political science.

The essential characteristics of the educational portfolio define it as a unique, modern educational technology, applicable at all stages of high and higher education. Its distinctive feature is that it reflects connection between theory, scientific knowledge and pedagogical practice: it processes, modifies, molds, builds one or other theory, principles, approaches and methods, and integrates knowledge from various fields of science and practice, in order to provide optimal and effective solution for educational and instructive purposes.

On other side, it characterizes the process-activity and organization-function side of the pedagogical activity [1].

Essential and important moment in portfolio’s creation is that it is an author’s product that reflects individual style, various levels of activity, rationalization and motivation in its development. The process of development itself is a significant goal that rationalizes the steps in the educational process. Other culture for learning is being built, other type of relations between teacher – pupil – parents, lecturer – students, are being suggested [3, 180].

The accent is on progress, positive changes, development in specific discipline or field. Author’s positive changes and best achievements are the ones taken into account. It is a reliable method for shaping an adequate and positive self-assessment, analysis for one’s development.

In the process of creation the self-assessment becomes more and more independent from external evaluator and starts regulating according to internally accepted, rationalized criteria. In this way the author (a pupil, student or a professional) becomes an actual participant in the processes of their learning, development, growing – in formulation of goals, planning and designing the educational activity, commenting the learning materials. All this suggests for other level of responsibility for achieved and for forthcoming, other motivation for participation. [2].

These features of the portfolio transform the learning into something more than mastering knowledge – it is being transformed into mastering competencies and development of more complex personality structures.

In pedagogy literature various classifications of the educational portfolio exist, according to various criteria. For the purpose of this investigation, the use of proceedings portfolio in students training process is of interest. It includes materials from the work on the subject or the field of author’s assessment, analysis, and interpretation. Its purpose is to show the participation and inclusion of the author in the processes of their own learning, development, change. The student here performs deep reflective analysis by expressing his position not only on a certain subject or field, but also how he worked, rationalized, thought and experienced during different stages of portfolio’s creation [2].

Objective of this paper is to investigate efficacy of educational portfolio use, as innovative, personality-oriented technology in students training.

Results from investigation

The investigation is conducted among 81 students totally, majoring “Social activities”, from the Medical college at the Medical University of Pleven. The modern innovative technology educational portfolio is used during the process of education in the discipline Social Pedagogy. At the end of the training course in the discipline, the students complete a rating scale form for self-assessment of efficacy of the used educational technology.

The rating scale for self-assessment is developed according to three major criteria: positive change, sustainability and efficacy, and each criterion uses predefined indexes. The self-assessment responses use letter indexes:  : a – “no”, b – “more like no”, c – “cannot estimate”, d – “more like yes”, e – “yes”. The results are summarized in percentage for each response. The results for each criterion are displayed in tables.

The criterion positive change is used by the students for self-assessment in five categories: planning activities related to the corresponding discipline; looking to apply in practice mastered knowledge; bearing responsibility for implementation of plans; taking into account strengths and weakness, achievements and gaps; planning the next actions. The results are displayed in Table 1.

Table 1.

Positive change

Categories	“а” %	“в” %	“с” %	“d” %	“е” %
Planning activities related to the corresponding discipline	0	9,88	0	20,99	69,14
Looking to apply in practice mastered knowledge	0	3,70	6,17	20,99	69,14
Bearing responsibility for implementation of plans	0	0	7,41	19,75	72,84
Taking into account strengths and weakness, achievements and gaps	0	6,17	9,88	35,80	48,15
Planning the next actions	0	9,88	0	20,99	69,14

Students’ responses show that no responses are marked with an “a” index (“no”). With the following two indexes “b – “more like no” and “c – “cannot estimate” are marked responses from 3,70% to 9,88%  and for three of the  categories is 0%. With index “d – “more like yes” are marked responses to taking into account strengths and weakness, achievements and gaps – 35,80%. Then the categories planning activities related to the corresponding discipline, looking to apply in practice mastered knowledge and planning the next actions planning the next actions follow, with 20,99%. Slightly after is the category bearing responsibility for implementation of plans – 17,95%. This results is at the expense of index “e” – “yes” used in 72,84%. As in index d – “more like yes” – the responses are equal for the same three categories – 69,14%, followed by the category with higher results, for index “e – “yes” they reach 48,15%.

The values give us grounds to conclude that as a result from the used innovative technology – educational portfolio – the students mastered the skill to plan their immediate and their future tasks. They look for opportunities to apply mastered theory knowledge, while practicing during seminars in the corresponding discipline and in individual preparation. They implement planned tasks with responsibility and are able to pinpoint their strengths and weakness, achievements and gaps, in preparation for the discipline.

The criterion sustainability is used for self-assessment in three categories: active participation in various modes of training – auditorium, extra-auditorium, integration of knowledge from various disciplines, enrichment of future professional training. The results are displayed in Table 2.

Table 2.

Sustainability

Categories	“а” %	“в” %	“с” %	“d” %	“е” %
Active participation in various modes of training – auditorium, extra-auditorium	0	0	0	45,68	54,32
Integration of knowledge from various disciplines	0	0	9,88	50,61	39,51
Enrichment of future professional training	0	0	9,88	43,20	46,91

For this criterion there is no values for index a – “no”, b – “more like no” for all categories. Index c – “cannot estimate” is used for responses to integration of knowledge from various disciplines and enrichment of future professional training, and the self-assessment is 9,88%. The highest values are for the next two indexes. The highest value for index d — “more like yes” is for category integration of knowledge from various disciplines – 50,61%, followed by active participation in various modes of training – auditorium, extra-auditorium – 45,68% and enrichment of future professional training — 43,20%/  These results influence the values of index e –“yes” , which show the difference between this and previous index values. Here the highest result is for the category active participation in various modes of training – auditorium, extra-auditorium — 54,32%, followed by enrichment of future professional training – 46,91% and integration of knowledge from various disciplines – 39,51%.

The values received for sustainability criterion show that as a result from educational portfolio usage, the respondent students enrich their future professional preparation by active participation in auditorium and extra-auditorium mode of training, and by integration of knowledge from various disciplines.

The results for efficiency criterion are registered in the following categories: knowledge – mastered scientific facts, shaped concepts; skills – orientation in abundance of pedagogy literature, use of selected theory material in planning practical activities, competencies – understanding the essence of the discipline, understanding the options to apply mastered knowledge in future profession; attitude – formed positive attitude to the academic discipline, positive attitude to learning.  The values per category are displayed in Table 3.

Table 3.

Efficiency

	Categories	“а” в %	“в” в %	“с” в %	“d” в %	“е” в %
Knowledge	Mastered scientific facts	0	0	9.88	35.80	54.32
	Shaped concepts	0	0	9.88	35.80	54.32
Skills	Orientation in abundance of pedagogy literature	0	3.70	6.17	38.27	51.85
	Use of selected theory material in planning practical activities	0	9.88	0	38.27	51.85
Competencies	Understanding the essence of the discipline	0	0	9.88	32,10	58.02
	Understanding the options to apply mastered knowledge in future profession	0	3.70	6.17	32,10	58.02
Attitude	Formed positive attitude to the academic discipline	0	3.70	6.17	30.86	59.26
	Positive attitude to learning	0	3.70	6.17	30.86	59.26

It is a good impression that with this criterion, like with the previous two, there are no responses with index “a” – “no” ; but for indexes “b” – “more like no” and “c” – “cannot estimate” for each category vary from 0% to 9,88%. Another important point here is that for each category two questions are asked, and the results are of equal value for each index. For example, for category knowledge the two questions with index “d” – “more like yes” , the values are 35,80%, and for index “ e”– “yes” the values are 54,32%. The trend is persistent for skills, competencies and attitude. For index “d” –“more like yes” the highest values are for skills – 38,27%, then competencies – 32,10% and attitude – 30,86%. The values influence the relatively higher values for index “e-“yes”, where all levels are higher than 50% and with the highest rate is the attitude – 59,26%. Then follow competencies – 58,02% and skills – 51,85%.

In their responses the students take into account that as a result of the use of the innovative technology educational portfolio, they actively master scientific facts and form concepts in certain academic discipline. They master skills for orientation in the abundance of the pedagogical literature and to use selected theory material when planning their practical work. The students highly assess the opportunity to apply acquired knowledge in their future profession. This working technique reveals the essence of the academic discipline, shapes positive attitude towards it and to the learning.

Conclusion

The received values from the rating scale for self-assessment of efficacy of the used educational technology educational portfolio with students gives the grounds for the following conclusions and summary:

1. As a result from the use of the portfolio in the training process the positive change in the students is related to planning and practical application of mastered knowledge in the academic discipline. They refer with responsibility to their next actions and critically register achievements and gaps in their preparation for future specialists.
2. The sustainability of the suggested educational technology is expressed in active participation of students in auditorium and extra-auditorium modes of training, in integration of their knowledge from similar disciplines, in expansion and enrichment of their future professional preparation.
3. The efficacy of the education portfolio use is expressed through the process of accumulation of knowledge and skills, in forming professional competencies, in building a positive attitude to learning. The efficacy is reflected in humanization of the university educational environment because the students actually participate in the process of their own learning, professional development and future growth as specialists.

literature

1. Petrov, P., M. Atanasova. Educational technologies and learning strategies. Sofia, 2001
2. Yanakieva S. portfolios — philosophy, technology, practical projections. Management of secondary education. Vol. 1.2, 2006, interc-edu.hit.bg/edu/e4/4.7.pdf/27.05.2014
3. Zagvozdkin VK Portfeyl individual academic achievements — something more than just an alternate way to evaluate. School technology, №3, 2004[schema type=»book» name=»EDUCATIONAL PORTFOLIO – PERSONALITY-ORIENTED TECHNOLOGY IN TRAINING OF STUDENTS» description=»Objective of this paper is to investigate efficacy of educational portfolio use, as innovative, personality-oriented technology in students training. The study was conducted with students in the course «Social pedagogy». They filled the rating scale for self-evaluation of the effectiveness of the use of educational technology. In their responses the students take into account that as a result of the use of the innovative technology educational portfolio, they actively master scientific facts and form concepts in certain academic discipline. The students highly assess the opportunity to apply acquired knowledge in their future profession. This working technique reveals the essence of the academic discipline, shapes positive attitude towards it and to the learning.» author=»Petkova Iskra Tsankova» publisher=»Басаранович Екатерина» pubdate=»2016-12-16″ edition=»euroasia-science_6(27)_23.06.2016″ ebook=»yes» ]