A Systems Approach to Front End Analysis: Incorporating the ePortfolio System Mahara into SUPA Clients High Schools.

Kevin Forgard

IDE 712: Analysis for Human Performance Technology Decisions

Submitted to Dr. Jing Let

May 2, 2010

Background

Syracuse University’s Project Advance (SUPA) English Language Arts Curriculum

(ELA) provides high school students with a college level learning opportunity while still

attending high school. The ELA curriculum focuses on developing rhetorical strategies and

practices of academic writing and is designed to help learners critically interpret texts from

multi-cultural contexts. In order to add a technological component to the ELA courses while

preparing learners for college admissions, SUPA administrators have decided to offer ePortfolios

as a resource for their ELA teachers.

Tasked with the job of implementing an ePortfolio system the SUPA Design Team, led

by Dr. Rob Pusch, was asked to choose an appropriate ePortfolio program and to interface with

SUPA information technology personnel to install and test the program on SUPA servers. The

team chose the open source ePortfolio program Mahara because it was considered the best fit in

price and features. Since Mahara is new technology for SUPA courses, during the installation of

process, Dr. Pusch worked with the SUAP ELA Associate director to choose appropriate

technological friendly teachers for a pilot study. Three teachers were set up with Mahara

accounts and given Mahara Quick Start Guides developed under Dr. Pusch’s and the ELA

Associate director’s direction to help them get started. The SUPA ELA administrator has also

been tasked to research pedagogy of ePortfolios, which she has shared with the pilot teachers.

The next step in the implementation process is to conduct a front end analysis (FEA) to

determine the best way to incorporate Mahara in the ELA courses.

Portfolios and ePortfolios as learning tools

Portfolios as a learning and assessment tool have been used to demonstrate student

process, showcase exemplary work, and act as an overall collection of praises, awards, or grades.

EPortfolios, on the other hand, possess these functions, but offer the additional component of

social networking, creating a valuable social learning environment (Yancy, 2009). The functions

of ePortfolios go beyond classroom based learning, which as Yancy states, “…operate in a larger

frame of reference, across courses and often across experiences” (p.2). So instead of being seen

as an isolated collection of static artifacts as regular portfolios can be, the electronic nature of

ePortfolios facilitates a dynamic connection between collected artifacts and a larger community

of learners within a social network. The social connection of ePortfolios used in learning as

theorized by Tosh, et al., (2007), within a “learning landscape framework”, are able to promote a

deep learning experience by providing students with the typical portfolio experience accentuated

with opportunities such as self-reflection, communication among a network of classmates or

teachers, and the ability to share with a larger global network. EPortfolios can be further defined

within their extended functional capabilities such as, “storage, information management,

connections, communication, and development” (Waltz, p. 196, 2007). As the research literature

is defining ePortfoilos within the complexity of defining learning, educational scholars are

beginning to acknowledge the value of ePortfoilios as a way to assess learners beyond single

grading instances (Tosh, et al., 2007).

In the spirit of ePortfolio research, Mahara is designed to be used as a social learning

tool. The software incorporates Web 2.0 social networking elements by allowing students to

create online portfolios housed within a learning management system network (LMS). As an

open source program, the notion of being socially based software has been a large part of Mahara

development, with support generated by open source community involvement. How the social

learning perspective fits into the SUPA system, and whether there is a need for such a system is

the implementation challenge the Design Team faces.

Systems approach

Following the basic Instructional Systems Design (ISD) model, ADDIE, where ‘A’, the

analysis phase determines need, this Front End Analysis (FEA) is using a systems approach for

this project to help define how the SUPA ePortfolio implementation lies within the context of a

system (Rossett, 1987). In short, a systems (also sometimes known as cybernetic systems) ISD

approach involves analyzing a context from an input, process, output, and feedback dynamic.

From the systems perspective, in the analysis phase, the instructional design-researcher becomes

aware of what has occurred to contribute to the input of the system, the process that occurs after

the input, and the effects of the process including how outcomes may or may not feedback into

the system. By determining if there is a discrepancy between the intended input and output,

instructional objectives are prescribed to help improve and align expectations with outcomes

(Romiszowski, 1995). A FEA uses current output data to feedback into the system to

purposefully improve the quality of future outcomes; in this case, a better defined set of

objectives and suggestions to meet those objectives. A systems based FEA provides a holistic

view of the learning context to influence change for better learning effectiveness, instead of only

change for other factors, such as improved learning efficiency (Davies, 1997). Through the

systems approach, a more effective intervention should improve the overall system by better

defining the problem and prescribing ways to solve the problem through a better understanding

of output.

Defining the Problem

One consideration within the systems perspective is how a learning intervention at times

pushes a solution onto a problem that has not been clearly defined (Romiszowski, 1995). The

SUPA Mahara implementation up to this point may be the case here, where the administrators’

zeal is a “solution looking for problem” (Romiszowski, p. 10, 1995). In defining the problem, it

is important to note how the term ‘need’ is used in this proposal and clarify that this proposed

FEA defines ‘need’ as a discrepancy and not ‘need’ as a desire. The main question to ask is

whether a need for Mahara exists within the SUPA system. A need, however, can be perceived

from multiple contexts. This next section clarifies the problem of Mahara implementation by

defining the context of potential performance problems.

As with any technological changes in education, a problem to consider is how to leverage

between the desire for the technological change with the need for the technological change.

Defining the problem means examining the context of the SUPA system as they may see the

need for a technology such as ePortfolios. SUPA operates under the leadership of Syracuse

University (SU), whose organizational vision of ‘Scholarship in Action’, drives the school’s

practices. SUPA leadership has interpreted this vision by identifying ePortfolios as a cutting edge

tool for students and teachers to use to become in essence, ‘scholars in action’. This means

understanding that SUPA is pushing the technology onto client partner high schools that operate

under their own governing principles and contexts which function well outside of the SU system.

This situation is unique in that SUPA acts as an arm of SU in multiple school systems spanning

across several states. Tension may occur in the relationships because the schools may or may not

perceive the need with the same set of priorities as SUPA does. The need for technology change

is also fueled by the fact that SUPA is operating within a competitive climate with other

concurrent enrollment programs such Advanced Placement and International Baccalaureate who

may offer more flexibility in their programs than SUPA’s push for ePortfolios. Understanding

the need for ePortfolio in this situation reveals several potential performance gap areas that

define the problem. These needs gaps are related to realization, knowledge, and environment.

The next several paragraphs further define these potential discrepancies.

Realization gap

As client high school teachers who teach SUPA course are trained to know, a SUPA

course is an SU course. However, there is still a certain amount of autonomy in the curriculum.

When conducting this FEA, it is important to acknowledge the teachers’ realization gap in how

their school system may or may not provide incentives or motivations to use Mahara. In other

words, SUPA cannot simply say ‘use it’ and expect positive results. The challenge, therefore, is

to convince SUPA teaches to incorporate ePortfolios into their SUPA curriculum by showing

how Mahara is a tool that effectively helps students meet objectives for the courses. At first,

ePortfolios can be an optional component for ELA courses, but then become a requirement once

teachers have the proper incentive – a realization of the importance of ePortfolios – and how

Mahara meets this need. This situation, when seen from the systems perspective, helps define

how the ‘need’ should be perceived as both a top-down (SU vision) and bottom-up (teachers in

their local context) directive. Teachers must realize that a need exists for ePortfolios and that

Mahara is the tool to fill that discrepancy.

Knowledge gap

Aside from the realization gap is the challenge of helping both SUPA teachers and

students understand Mahara’s capabilities and functions. As with any software, using Mahara

requires a certain amount of knowledge to navigate the system and create what a user envisions.

Bridging this knowledge gap involves helping users conceptualize the Mahara system well

enough to create effective ePortfolios that can be used within the larger context of the social

networks. That is, as the theory of ePortfolio design promotes access to the ‘learning landscape

framework’, the simple need remains that users should know how to use the program. Simple

tasks such as creating a blog, managing a group forum, managing users, and incorporating Web

2.0 social media into an ePortfolio may be part of this knowledge gap. Teachers face the bigger

challenge that is related to the pedagogy of ePorfolios, which is another knowledge vain to

consider.

Environmental gap

Assuming for a moment that no performance gaps exist – students know how to use

Mahara, and teachers understand the value of ePortfolios. Another non-performance issue that

could potentially be part of the system’s program, and one this proposal is seeking to investigate,

relates to the client school’s technological environment. A School’s internet restriction policy

and/or out dated hardware can create a disincentive for even teachers with the best intentions to

use Mahara. Therefore, the environmental gap analysis should research SUPA client schools’

internet and computer usage policies, which may be preventing access to Mahara and the

components needed to create an ePortfolio. Websites such as YouTube.com, Flickr.com, and

other Web 2.0 social media tools are integral to a Mahara ePortfoilo. Related to the

environmental gap of Mahara use is a concern for student safety in an environment of open

internet access. By putting an ePortfolio in cyberspace, a person’s identity and personal

information is potentially accessible by anyone. This is why schools may justify a closed access

internet system. Despite any school policies in this matter, the environmental gap is something

that should be considered within a FEA not just within the context of safety with global access,

but safety within the local context as well. The environmental gap represents the need for

students, teachers, and parents to perceive that Mahara’s ePortfolio system is a ‘safe space’ for

expression, and primarily closed to viewers outside of the class (Hughes, 2009).

Justifying Mahara Use in SUPA Courses

Through the process of defining the problem of implementing Mahara within the context

of the gaps, part of the reasoning behind SUPA’s decision to push for ePortfolios in their ELA

courses begins to reveal the system that contributes to the choice. SUPA administrators have

decided to implement Mahara, but in order for the implementation to be successful, the problem

and justification for its solution should be discussed to help understand the purposes behind the

decision. This next section illustrates the main reasons why this particular performance problem

should be solved as a way to clarify the need and demonstrate the systemic factors involved with

incorporating ePortfolios into the SUPA ELA curriculum. These reasons include institutional

justification, the pedagogical justification, and the practical justification.

Institutional justification

As with most rational organizations, SUPA lies within the larger Syracuse University

system governed by SU leadership and mission. Within SUPA practice is a tradition of being one

of the top concurrent enrollment programs in the country with sole accreditation in the Northeast

by the National Alliance of Concurrent Enrollment Programs (NACEP) (SUPA website, 2010).

In order to maintain this designation, SUPA must strategize to be a concurrent enrollment leader.

For SUPA administration, this means implementing ‘cutting edge’ research based and

experimental practices and technologies in its courses so that a SUPA classes reflects SU’s

research tradition while allowing for SUPA to maintain its market strength. This is the

institutional justification for change, which as mentioned earlier, is a matter for SUPA

administration to understand how a FEA works to help leverage a desire for the technology with

an understanding a need for the technology.

Pedagogical justification

Change here is not occurring in a vacuum, but is tied to a concurrent enrollment program

market. However, as a learning institution, SU and SUPA may justify a change for pedagogical

reasons. As the administration is intending, a purpose of adding ePortfoilos to the SUPA ELA

curriculum is simply to improve student learning; ePortfolios are useful as assessment tools, as a

way for students to develop the practice of self-reflection, and for students to publically

demonstrate their work (Mu, et al., 2010). Within the context of a SUPA English course, this

could mean student success not just in the course that uses ePortfoilos, but in their future post-

secondary studies. By implementing ePortfoilos as part of a SUPA course, the administration is

committing to disseminating a new pedagogy that helps bridge a theory such as social-

constructivism through ePortfolio into practice (McGee, et al., 2006). However, as lofty as the

idea may seem, high school teachers who use Mahara may need to be informed and trained on

how ePortfolios, specifically Mahara, fits into praxis.

Practical justification

As SUPA acts and justifies the need for Mahara within institutional and pedagogical

reasoning, there is also a practical justification to consider. Mahara would be used in SUPA

client high schools by teachers and students who are somewhat distant from the pedagogical and

institutional logic behind Mahara implementations. These users will need targeted technical

support and should be heard by SUPA. Therefore, implementing Mahara requires focusing on

the commitment to user feedback within a technological support mechanism. Teachers and

students cannot be expected to just ‘figure out’ the system, but will need a focused training and

support system in place to help them overcome any technical issues. Mahara is a complex

program that requires teachers to set up courses, provide examples, manage students, give

feedback, and manage the Mahara Institution (local school’s network). In another words, when

analyzing the need within the performance problem there should be a consideration for practical

training and support.

Methodology

This FEA is seeking to determine the need for the Mahara ePortfolio system through

analysis of potential causes to performance problems within the systematic framework of SUPA

and its implementation plan. The plan will seek to answer how to best implement Mahara in

SUPA client schools by asking how to effectively inform the design and development of training

materials and how to best inform the design of an ePortfolio communication plan. In essence, the

FEA plan seeks to define need within the SUPA context as a need for training, information

support, or both training and information support.

In order to gather the appropriate information, the FEA will utilize a well used method of

needs assessment and task analysis documented in books authored by Rossett (1987) and

Diamond (2007). A FEA process traditionally involves first conducting a needs assessment to

determine if there is a need for training and then do a task analysis, which functions to inventory,

select, decompose, sequence, and/or classify tasks (Jonassen, et al., 1999). Rossett (1987), within

the broader term of Training Needs Assessment (TNA), defines need assessment as “the

systematic effort that we make to gather opinions and ideas from a variety of sources on

performance problems or new systems and technologies” (p. 62). Rossett further posits that a

performance problem is expressed as a gap or discrepancy between a desired outcome and an

actual outcome usually caused by lack of knowledge or skill, lack of incentives, lack of

motivation, or through some sort of environmental constraint. Task analysis, as a method to

examining activities within a performance, involves identifying observable behaviors and

cognitive process a person does to complete a particular task (inventory), choosing the

appropriate task from the inventory (selecting), breaking down the tasks into smaller pieces

(deconstructing), putting the deconstructed pieces into a new order (sequencing), and classifying

the type of learning the task involves within a taxonomy, such as Gagne’s task classification, to

determine the outcome of learning the task (classifying) (Jonassen, et al., 1999; Gagne, et al.

2005).

Within the framework presented above, the FEA process this design plan presents,

describes the main tasks of how needs analysis helps develop the optimal (Rossett) and the ideal

(Diamond) performance through the collection of particular data, which can be used to inform

the task analysis of the Mahara system within the appropriate context, and ultimately lead to a

purposeful set of training and information goals. Rossett’s (1987) training needs assessment

approach involves five dimensions or purposes of TNA. These are: optimal – the model level of

knowledge (skills or attitude) to complete a task; actual – what a person is really doing; feelings

– a person’s opinions about the task under analysis; causes – what might be contributing to the

discrepancy between actual to optimal performance; and solutions – how the discrepancy can be

bridged. The Diamond instructional design model FEA approach uses the central concept of ‘the

ideal’ within the process used to develop curriculum by thoroughly examining the context of the

project being designed. Beyond determining the ‘need’, the FEA approach of the Diamond

model involves initial data collection steps such as, surveying the student and teacher

characteristics, identifying the social needs of the project, identifying the education priorities of

the school, indentifying a knowledge base from review of relevant literature on the discipline’s

pedagogy, and reviewing research on similar program implementations.

A hybrid of the two approaches is useful for the SUPA Mahara FEA because as much as

the Rossett TNA methodology is geared for a general training context, Diamond’s approach, is

specifically used in a higher education context where need is defined within school curriculum.

By using both approaches – Rossett’s TNA framework provides the language to best determine

the need as a gap in knowledge, motivation, or environment and Diamond’s approach helps the

FEA focus on the ideal – this proposal is better able to focus attention from a broader education

perspective. The flowchart below (Figure 1) illustrates the process of the FEA methodology.

The paragraphs below discuss in further detail the FEA process.

Figure 1

Since SUPA has already chosen to implement Mahara, the next step in the FEA involves

determining both the ideal and optimal performance. This determination is fueled by the central

question: does the need for training exist, or is the need met through a non-training solution?

Within the process, the plan involves data collection by surveying learners (teachers & students),

surveying SUPA key administration, identifying the social need within literature, identifying

education priorities and computer infrastructures of client schools through surveys, identifying

literature knowledge base to define ePortfolios, and reviewing previous ePortfolio

implementations through review of case studies. This process is designed with a feedback system

that runs through iterations to create a more thorough analysis. Part of the feedback loop involves

conducting a subject matter analysis. Since an ePortfolio subject matter expert is not accessible,

the iterative feedback process will determine primarily through a literature review and data

collection how to best analyze the program’s tasks while determining need. In other words, just

asking teachers if they want ePortfolios without knowing the tasks would create a

misunderstanding of ‘need’. The two strands of data and subject matter analysis work together to

help answer the central research questions and create a clearer understanding of performance

discrepancies.

To do a subject matter analysis, the FEA process creates a set of analysis criteria by

determining an optimal performance of Mahara. This process involves first doing a learning

hierarchy analysis that inventories the various functions of the program from the perspectives of

students, teachers, and the school. This learning inventory will also involve selecting and

sequencing the information as it uses and influences the analysis criteria. As circular as the

process seems, the intension is to determine optimal performance while defining what optimal

performance means. The larger challenge lies in analyzing the type of learning involved with

creating and teaching ePortfolios within the context of the program Mahara. For the purposes of

this initial report, a simple solution would be to classify Mahara processes as a group of

procedural learning tasks akin to using any web based software. As Jonassen et al (1999)

describe in conducting task analysis or in this case, task classification, as making a “critical link

between task analysis and training” the process can connect the tasks, assessments, and methods

instructional development step uses to help learners learn the tasks (p. 25). A simple procedural

breakdown of Mahara’s ePortfolio creation and system management will reveal optimal

performances on completing certain tasks, which can be analyzed within Gagne’s taxonomy of

intellectual skills, verbal information, and problem solving to a certain extent, but the deeper

taxonomic task classification may reveal learners’ internal strategies that relate need within

motivation and self-directed cognitive strategies (Gagne, et al., 2005).

To summarize, the process of determining the ideal and optimal performance is iterative,

designed with a positive feedback loop that influences the entire FEA process. Each piece

informs the other through data gathered within each of the steps. For instance, in establishing an

ePortfolio knowledge base by identifying and analyzing key literature, information is used to

develop a set of analysis criteria that both informs the creation of other research instruments such

as surveys, as well as helping a way to conduct the task analysis of Mahara. This method brings

together the optimal performance of ePortfolios within the ideal context of how Mahara as an

ePortfolio system can be used in SUPA ELA courses. Additionally, the FEA will help determine

if there truly is a need for ePortfolios in the SUPA ELA courses, if Mahara is indeed the best

system to meet this need, and then how the FEA process can create instructional goals and

objectives that feeds into instructional development.

The data collection process will entail analyzing the learner’s knowledge and skills (k,s)

and motivation levels (m). Additionally, the process involves examining the high schools within

the SUPA system by examining factors that may or may not contribute to creating incentives (i),

including how the environment (e) plays a role within the systems. Further analysis will reveal

how a larger social need can help contribute the all the variable (k, s, m, i, e) as well as articulate

the analysis criteria of how ePortfolios are used in secondary and higher education contexts to

function as part of the feedback iterations described above. In order to determine the potential

discrepancies within the variables, several processes will be used, such as interviews, focus

groups, and surveys of SUPA teachers, students, and key staff. Of note relating to potential

environmental discrepancies, a special survey will be developed for client schools’ educational

technology infrastructure to determine if the appropriate computing environment is available for

the students and teachers to use Mahara. Other data to be collected include review of student

written test scores on standardized tests. Informing the design of the surveys and interview

questions will be the development of a ePortfolio knowledge base that identifies key terms

within research based findings and how previous ePortfoilo implementations faced and overcame

challenges. This literature review piece is expected to be the main feedback component of the

process. Each research component is designed to contribute to the overall context informing the

ideal, optimal, actual, feelings, causes, and solutions with the goal of answering the central

questions of this FEA. The table below (Table 1) summarizes each step in the process describing

what it seeks to find and which piece of the FEA context the information will inform.

Table  1  

Process Seeks to find Informs Interview and survey teachers and students

• Prerequisite knowledge (k,s) • Teacher’s use of technology in the

Ideal, optimal, actual

classroom (k, s) • Student competencies and attitudes

towards ePortfolios (k, s, i) • Teacher and student expectations (i, m) • Students’ long range learning goals (m)

Literature review of ePortfolios

• Establish an ePortfolio knowledge base on usage and pedagogies (k, s, m)

• Identifies the social need for ePortfolios (k,s, m)

Ideal

Literature review of other ePortfolio implementations

• Case studies on how schools faced changes (m, k, s)

Ideal

Review extant data • Student’s writing ability and test scores (m)

Actual

Survey SUPA client school’s IT infrastructure

• Determine where and how Mahara would work in schools (e)

• Determine if schools have open web access (e)

Actual

Tasks analysis • Inventory Mahara processes (k) Optimal, ideal

Solutions

Upon initial research in developing an ePortolio knowledge base, the literature has

revealed a set of “functional criteria for an ePortfolio system” that will be used to inform the

development of a survey and the creation of interview questions (Mu et al., Developing the

EPortfolio Selection Crtiera, 2010). These functional criteria (tiered access, matrices of student

outcomes, evaluation, areas for student retention, aggregate reporting, aesthetics and usability,

and other considerations), in mimicking the Mu et al. needs assessment study, are used as a basis

in defining Mahara’s capabilities within the context of this report’s central question of

determining the need for ePortfoilos in SUPA courses. This study, along with information

collected in another article (Yancey, 2009) and from books edited by leading ePortfolio

researchers (Cambridge, et al., 2009; Jafani & Kaufman, 2006), a coherent and relevant

knowledge base is beginning to emerge that will inform the design of collection instruments of

SUPA schools and provide in the design of training or information materials. Within the context

of the FEA research design, such literature provides information on optimal and ideal traits of

ePortfolios. Further analysis can cross reference whether or not Mahara meets the research based

traits. The matrix below (Table 2) demonstrates how the process has begun to unfold up to this

point.

Table  2  

Optimal  traits  of  ePortfolios   Detail   Mahara  Capabilities  

 Survey  Results  From  Mu  et  al.  (2010)  

Yancey  (2009)  ePortfolio  research  knowledge  base  

Elaboration  of  the  trait   How  Mahara  meets  trait  

  EPortfolio  as  a  way  for  students  to  develop  ‘noncognitive  traits’  (NCT)  

NCT  –  behaviors,  attitudes,  ability  to  work  with  others.  Research  shows  that  students  who  develop  these  traits  are  more  likely  to  stay  in  school  (Yancey,  2009,  p.  2)  

ePortfilios  can  be  exported  and  used  after  the  SUPA  course  ends  

Tiered  access     Internal  vs.  external  access  to  content  

The  system  is  capable  of  allowing  schools  to  create  internal  secure  access  and  allows  students  to  share  their  ePortfolios  to  external  views  via  a  unique  URL  

Matrices  of  student  learning  outcomes  based  on  course  and/or  instructional  needs  

Creating  the  ‘translation  effect’    Writes  on  how  ePortfolios  should  be  able  to  promote  learning  throughout  various  contexts  (not  just  one  class,  but  used  in  a  holistic  coursework)      Multi-­‐contextual  –  connect  from  one  class  to  other  classes  to  outside  of  school  

Develop  list  of  broad  skills  that  ePortfolio  learning  can  help  bring  together  

Mahara  is  a  networked  program  allowing  student  users  to  create  many  portfolios  within  a  single  user  account  

Optimal  traits  of  ePortfolios   Detail   Mahara  Capabilities  

 “students  demonstrate  that  they  can  make  connections  among  those  things  that  they  have  learned”  (p.  4)    Use  of  a  ‘skills  matrix’    

Evaluation  component    Student  reflection  component    System  has  an  aggregate  reporting  capability  

Measuring  the  students’  ability  to  reflect  through  an  ePortfolio.    Developing  students’  ability  to  reflect  should  be  a  part  of  an  ePortfolio  system.  

Rubrics  and  feedback  mechanism  

Mahara  feedback  system  works  from  teacher  to  student  and  student  to  student.  It  is  private  and  can  be  used  to  evidence  progress.    

Usability  and  aesthetics  

  GUI  and  ease  of  use  Low  learning  curve  

System  is  intuitive  with  a  familiar  social  networking  component.  EPortfolios  are  made  using  a  drag  and  drop  method.    

Ability  to  integrate  with  schools  computer  system  

    System  is  housed  on  SUPA  servers,  but  schools  need  to  have  open  web  access  to  use  the  programs  full  functions  

Conclusion

As proponents of ePortfolios claim, the use of ePortfolios in a class promotes a deep and

lifelong learning experience for students who use them and new pedagogical choices for

educators who teach with them (Chen, 2009; Lane, 2009). Such claims suggest that there is

indeed a need for ePortfoilo use in most any course. However, can these bits of research be

translated as a need for Mahara for SUPA’s ELA courses? Such claims are the ideal that help

define the need. However, their perspectives contribute to the promotion of ePortfolios in

education, which can be used to aid in the implementation of an ePortflio system, by helping an

organization consider how the push for the new technology may be fueled by a misunderstanding

of the meaning of ‘need’. SUPA administration reads such research and may interpret need as a

want. Therefore, through a comprehensive FEA, it is important to determine if SUPA

administrators are pushing Mahara from need as desire and to consider whether there is a need

for the technology among its client schools. This comprehensive FEA plan is designed to clarify

the need by determining if such a need for ePortfoilos exist, and assuming so, how this need can

feed into the subsequent training or information design for SUPA’s Mahara implementation.

This will be accomplished by considering the implementation within the context of the system

SUPA operates in, which focuses research on people within the system: SUPA teachers, SUPA

administrators, students, and the literature landscape of current ePortfolio definition and use.

Through this process, the report will answer the questions: Is there a need for ePortfolios in the

SUPA system, and if so, does the need for ePortfolios training exist, or can this need met through

a non-training solution?

References

Cambridge, D., Cambridge, B., & Yancey, K. (2009). Electronic Portfolios 2.0:

Emergent Research on Implementation and Impact. Sterling, VA: Stylus.

Davis, I. (1996). Paradigms and conceptual ISD Systems. In Dills, C.R., & Romiszowski,

A. J. (Eds.) Instructional Development Paradigms. Edgewood Cliffs, NJ: Educational

Technology Publications.

Diamond, R. (2008). Designing and Assessing Course and Curricula: A Practical Guide.

(3rd Edition). : San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

Gagne, R.M., Wager, W.W., Golas, K.C., & Keller, J.M. (2005). Principles of

Instructional Design (5th Edition). Belmont, CA: Wadsworth/Thomson Learning.

Jafari, A., & Kaufman, C. (2006). Handbook of Research on ePortfolios. Hersey, PA:

Idea Group Reference.

Jonassen, D.H., Tessmer, M., & Hannum, W.H. (1999). Task Analysis Methods for

Instructional Design. New York, NY: Routledge.

Mu, E., Wormer, S., Roizey, R. Barkon, B., and Vehec, M. (2010). Conceptualizing the

functional requirements for a next-generation ePortfolio system. EDUCAUSE Quarterly, 33(1).

Retrieved March 26, 2010 from

http://www.educause.edu/EDUCAUSE+Quarterly/EDUCAUSEQuarterlyMagazineVolum/Conc

eptualizingtheFunctionalRe/199390

Romiszowski, A.J. (1995). Designing Instructional Systems: Decision Making in Course

Planning and Curriculum Design. New York, NY: Nichols Publishing.

Rossett, A. (1987). Training Needs Assessment. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Educational

Technology Publications.

Tosh, D., Werdmuller, B., Chen, H.L., Light, T.P., & Haywood, J. (2007). The learning

landscape: A conceptual framework for ePortfolios. In Jafari, A. & Kaufman, C. (Eds.),

Handbook of Research on ePortfolios (pp. 24-32).Hersey, PA: Idea Group Reference.

Yancey, K.B. (2009). Electronic portfolios a decade into the Twenty-first Century: What

we know, what we need to know. Peer Review, 11(1), 28-32.