I Tonni1, R G Oliver. 1. University of Brescia, Brescia, Italy. itonni@med.unibs.it
Abstract
AIM: The purpose of the study was to highlight students' and mentors' acceptability of a reflective e-portfolio instituted in a postgraduate orthodontic programme in the UK. METHODS: A reflective e-portfolio was developed on the basis of principles provided by a literature search and was piloted for 2 months with six students and seven mentors. At the end of the experience, mentors' and students' acceptability of the e-portfolio with a reflective component was studied using questionnaires. The data were analysed using basic quantitative and qualitative methods. RESULTS: Students' response highlighted acceptability issues related to each aspect of the e-portfolio derived from the literature: relevance of the e-portfolio reflective part; time required for the process; support and mentoring; the implementation method; and the electronic medium. Mentors showed a more positive attitude towards the e-portfolio, expressing only some concerns about the time involved in using it. Furthermore, the analysis of the data highlighted some other acceptability matters: the specificity of the e-portfolio, the communication amongst students and the relationship between students and mentors. CONCLUSIONS: The future successful implementation of the reflective e-portfolio will depend on the productive management of the acceptability issues identified by students and mentors, in particular:(i)the specificity of the e-portfolio that would avoid its overlapping with other part of the programme;(ii)the increasing communication amongst students to improve their knowledge of the reflective writing process; and (iii)the development of a relationship between students and mentors helping to create the appropriate environment for reflection.
AIM: The purpose of the study was to highlight students' and mentors' acceptability of a reflective e-portfolio instituted in a postgraduate orthodontic programme in the UK. METHODS: A reflective e-portfolio was developed on the basis of principles provided by a literature search and was piloted for 2 months with six students and seven mentors. At the end of the experience, mentors' and students' acceptability of the e-portfolio with a reflective component was studied using questionnaires. The data were analysed using basic quantitative and qualitative methods. RESULTS: Students' response highlighted acceptability issues related to each aspect of the e-portfolio derived from the literature: relevance of the e-portfolio reflective part; time required for the process; support and mentoring; the implementation method; and the electronic medium. Mentors showed a more positive attitude towards the e-portfolio, expressing only some concerns about the time involved in using it. Furthermore, the analysis of the data highlighted some other acceptability matters: the specificity of the e-portfolio, the communication amongst students and the relationship between students and mentors. CONCLUSIONS: The future successful implementation of the reflective e-portfolio will depend on the productive management of the acceptability issues identified by students and mentors, in particular:(i)the specificity of the e-portfolio that would avoid its overlapping with other part of the programme;(ii)the increasing communication amongst students to improve their knowledge of the reflective writing process; and (iii)the development of a relationship between students and mentors helping to create the appropriate environment for reflection.