The Effectiveness of e-Portfolios for Enhancing College Freshmen’s
Reflection and Aesthetic Literacy
Shih-yun Lu
1
, Wei-her Hsieh
2
, Chih Cheng Lo
3
, Yi Zeng Hsieh
4
and Tsai-Cheng Chang
5
1
Department of Digital Content and Technology, National Taichung University of Education, Taichung, Taiwan
2
Department of Fashion Design, Asia University, Taichung, Taiwan
3
Department of Industrial Education and Technology, National Changhua University of Education, Changhua, Taiwan
4
Department of Management and Information Technology, Southern Taiwan University of Science and Technology,
Tainan, Taiwan
5
Department of Digital Content and Technology, National Taichung University of Education, Taichung, Taiwan
Keywords: e-Portfolios, Reflection, Aesthetic Literacy.
Abstract: This paper aims to explore the theories and interrelationships of the effectiveness of creating e-portfolios for
enhancing the reflection and aesthetic literacy of first-year college students. First, the paper re-examined the
reflection scale and the aesthetic literacy scale with a questionnaire survey of first-year university students
in the central of Taiwan. Moreover, this paper justified the relationships between the reflection and aesthetic
literacy scales and their dimensions. Furthermore, the research results show that the reflection is highly
correlation to the depth of the digital files and aesthetic literacy is highly correlation to the visual
presentation of the digital files. Both variables can suitably reflect the student’s characteristics in the e-
portfolio., which provides a foundation for future research. Finally, the research attempted to encourage the
school educational incorporating the use of e-portfolios in the 12-year compulsory education curricula.
1 INTRODUCTION
In terms of e-portfolios is a learning product, created
by the learner, a collection of digital artefacts
articulating achievements, experiences and learning.
Through the process of creating these files, learners
demonstrate the knowledge they have acquired. This
paper tends to address the correlation between
learners’ reflection and aesthetic literacy by the
experience of e-portfolios. The objective of this
research is to employ suitable scales whether a
correlation exist between a college freshman’s
reflection and aesthetic literacy when creating an e-
portfolio.
2 LITERATURE REVIEW
2.1 Reflection and Dewey’s Education
Theory
Dewey’s education theory regarding the concepts of
reflection and aesthetic literacy were referred to as
progressivism between the 1920s and 1950s and was
considered mainstream in American education.
However, since the mid-1950s, progressivism has
gradually declined (Ye, 2010). Although a number
of scholars have defended Dewey and contended
that the decline of progressivism cannot be attributed
to Dewey’s theory of education (Lin, 2005), others
have argued that his theory only emphasizes
experiences related to reflection (Wu, 2009).
Therefore, scholars have begun reconsidering the
empirical theory and education theory on reflection
and aesthetic literacy proposed by Dewey
(Exploratorium, 2011; Mcdougall et al., 2011).
2.2 Reflection and e-Portfolios
Reflection is the heart and soul of a portfolio, and
the method to identify personal talent through
feedback analysis, which applied to e-portfolios, is
the objective of reflection (Barrett, 2010a).
Zubizarreta (2004) stated that the goal of a learning
portfolio is to enhance the personal development,
thus it must provide a framework that allows
students to reflect on their learning processes
Lu, S-y., Hsieh, W-h., Lo, C., Hsieh, Y. and Chang, T-C.
The Effectiveness of e-Portfolios for Enhancing College Freshmen’s Reflection and Aesthetic Literacy.
In Proceedings of the 8th International Conference on Computer Supported Education (CSEDU 2016) - Volume 1, pages 421-425
ISBN: 978-989-758-179-3
Copyright
c
2016 by SCITEPRESS – Science and Technology Publications, Lda. All rights reserved
421
systematically and continuously. In addition,
through critical reflection, students can develop their
aptitude, skills, and habits. Therefore, self-awareness
was the effectiveness of learning (Barrett, 2005).
The process of learning e-Portfolios product is the
complex processes of planning, synthesising,
sharing, discussing, reflecting, giving, receiving and
responding to feedback (Joyes et al., 2010).
2.3 Aesthetic Literacy and e-Portfolios
Aesthetic literacy is the meaningful response to
reading experiences and explanations, particularly
regarding print, images, and sounds (Clinard and
Foster 1998). The content of aesthetic literacy is
extended through writing, and is a distinctive
communicative language that includes verbal
expressions, music, kinesthesia, and vision.
Moreover, the processes of reading and writing are
not limited to the writing of the text but also include
the responses and communications of various artistic
activities. Thus, Clinard and Foster proposed the
Montana Framework for Aesthetic Literacy to
understand the content of visual, literary, and
performing arts. Furthermore, aesthetic literacy is
not used to cultivate professional artists, but is
instead meant to free students’ imagination and,
thus, enable them to possess the ability of narrating
and expressing their personal experiences of
aesthetic (arts) encounters (Greene, 1995).
3 RESEARCH METHODOLOGY
This paper adopted the existing reflection scale
(Kember et al., 1999; 2000) and aesthetic literacy
scale (Zhang, 2011; Cheng et al., 2011) in order to
explore the impact of e-portfolio on relatiionship
between reflection and aesthetic literacy. In termes
of the aesthetic literacy scale was only recently
developed and has not yet been applied by scholar.
The participants of this research were 1,277 first
year university students in Taiwan. This paper
employed a reflection scale, aesthetic literacy scale,
and group questions regarding the three topics of 29
questions were developed through a questionnaire
survey of the variables of participation in e-portfolio
competitions, gender, and years of e-portfolio use.
There were 1,189 valid sample, and the Cronbach’s
α for the reliability of the total scale was 0.839.
Excluding the three basic group questions, the
Cronbach’s α for the reliability of the 26 questions
in the two scales was 0.852. This indicates that the
stability of the scales was acceptable.
3.1 Reliability and Validity of the
Reflection Scale
Table1 shows that the results of this research are
nearly identical to those of the Kember scale
regarding the reliability of the scale dimension.
Excluding the reflection dimension, the Cronbach’s
α of this research exceeded that of the original scale
by 0.104. The values of the other dimensions were
0.004 to 0.015 lower. Additionally, the total α
coefficient of the reflection scale used for this
research was 0.795. Thus, the stability of the
reflection scale was acceptable.
Table 1: The Cronbach’s α value for dimensions of the
scale.
Scale
dimension
*Cronbach’s
α of the
original scale
Cronbach’s α
of the reflection
scale in this
research
Habitual &
action
0.621 0.617
Understanding 0.757 0.744
Reflection 0.631 0.735
Critical 0.675 0.660
Reflective
thinking
0.850 0.820
Total 0.795
*Based on Kember et al., ( 2000) and Zhang, 2011; Cheng et
al., 2011
The validity of the reflection scale used in this
research was based on the content validity,
confirmatory factor analysis, and construct validity
of the original scale (Kember et al., 2000, Wu,
1985).
The reliability results of this research were
nearly identical to those of the total scale developed
by Cheng et al. The Cronbach's α value of this
research was 0.820, slightly lower than that of the
original scale (0.030). However, the reliability of the
two versions of the scale reached an equal standard.
Therefore, the stability of the aesthetic literacy scale
used in this research was acceptable (Table2).
The validity of the aesthetic literacy scale used in
this research was based on the content validity,
confirmatory factor analysis, and construct validity
of the original scale (Wu, 1985; Zhang, 2011; Cheng
et al., 2011) Therefore, the research inferred that the
reliability and validity of the reflection and aesthetic
literacy scales used in this research exceeded the
standard, and the acquired data were worth
considering.
CSEDU 2016 - 8th International Conference on Computer Supported Education
422
Regarding the reliability of the college freshmen
reflection and aesthetic literacy scales, this paper
combined the reflection and aesthetic literacy scales
into a questionnaire comprising 26 questions. The
Cronbach's α value of the questionnaire was 0.844.
Therefore, the stability of the reflection and aesthetic
literacy questionnaire used in this research was
acceptable.
4 RESEARCH METHODOLOGY
EMPIRICAL RESULT
4.1 Correlation between College
Freshmen’S Reflection and
Aesthetic Literacy
According to the results shown in the table 2, no
correlation exists between habitual action and
reflection in the dimensions of the reflection scale
because the lowest level of significance (p < .05)
was not achieved. Habitual action and understanding
are negatively correlated, despite the correlation
coefficient being quite low (-0.073*). The
correlation coefficient of habitual action and critical
reflection was 0.151***, which indicates a low
correlation. The results imply that the habitual action
dimension basically comprises actions that do not be
considered, which differs fundamentally from the
dimensions of reflection, understanding, and critical
reflection.
By comparison, the correlation coefficients of
the dimensions of understanding, reflection, and
critical reflection indicate a moderate correlation
(0.498***, 0.544***, and 0.583***) with p < .001.
The data indicates that the three dimensions overlap
in certain areas. Although the confirmatory
discriminant validity of the original scale was
acceptable, the dimensions of the reflection scale
would be more complete if the correlation between
each dimension was further decreased.
The significance level of the correlation
coefficients for the three dimensions of the aesthetic
literacy scale was p < .001, which indicates a
moderate correlation (0.439***, 0.554***, and
0.579***). Due to the confirmatory discriminant
validity was superior when closer to 0, the data
indicate that the dimensions of the original scale
have room for improvement (Wu, 1985).
However, most of the correlation coefficients
between the seven dimensions shows a low
correlation when the two scales were combined for
the test. Excluding the moderate correlation
Table 2: Correlation coefficient analysis of the dimensions
of the reflection and aesthetic literacy scales for college
freshmen.
1 2 3 4 5
1.Habitual
Action
1
2.Understanding -.125 1
3.Reflection -.013 .531** 1
4.Critical
Reflection
.116** .419** .485** 1
5.Reflective
thinking
.421** .653** .731** .741** 1
(0.434*** and 0.400***) between reflective
thinking and critical reflection and exploration and
performance, the other correlation coefficients were
acceptable. Therefore, the confirmatory discriminant
validity between the dimensions of the scales used in
this research was acceptable.
Table 3: Post Hoc Turkey HSD for difference among
different experienced groups on E-portfolio.
Dimensio
ns
(I)E-
Portfolio
experience
(J) E-
Portfol
io
experi
ence
MD (I-J) Std.
Error
P-value
Habitual
action
3 years’
experienc
e
2 -.40616
*
.14629 .015
1 .16224 .08112 .113
2 years’
experienc
e
3 .40616
*
.14629 .015
1 .56840
*
.12528 .000
1 years’
Experien
ce
3 -.16224 .08112 .113
2 -.56840
*
.12528 .000
Understan
ding
3 years’
experienc
e
2 -.18821 .12862 .309
1 -.43318
*
.07132 .000
2 years’
experienc
e
3 .18821 .12862 .309
1 -.24497 .11015 .068
1 years’
Experien
ce
3 .43318
*
.07132 .000
2 .24497 .11015 .068
The Effectiveness of e-Portfolios for Enhancing College Freshmen’s Reflection and Aesthetic Literacy
423
Table 3: Post Hoc Turkey HSD for difference among
different experienced groups on E-portfolio (cont.).
Reflection
3 years’
experienc
e
2 -.08745 .12681 .770
1 -.17407
*
.07032 .036
2 years’
experienc
e
3 .08745 .12681 .770
1 -.08661 .10860 .705
1 years’
Experien
ce
3 .17407
*
.07032 .036
2 .08661 .10860 .705
Critical
3 years’
experienc
e
2 -.15574 .12242 .411
1 -.19511
*
.06788 .011
2 years’
experienc
e
3 .15574 .12242 .411
1 -.03938 .10484 .925
1 years’
Experien
ce
3 .19511
*
.06788 .011
2 .03938 .10484 .925
2 .05476 .06154 .647
Aesthetic
literacy
3 years’
experienc
e
2 -2.94554
1.2924
2
.059
1 -1.22449 .71666 .202
2 years’
experienc
e
3 2.94554
1.2924
2
.059
1 1.72105
1.1068
2
.266
1 years’
Experien
ce
3 1.22449 .71666 .202
2 -1.72105
1.1068
2
.266
Reflectiv
e
thinkin
g
3 years’
experienc
e
2 -.33502 .14130 .047
1
-.25605 .07835 .003
2 years’
experienc
e
3 .33502 .14130 .047
1
.07898 .12101 .791
1 years’
Experien
ce
3 .25605 .07835 .003
2
-.07898 .12101 .791
Notes: *p<0.05, **p<0.01, ***p<0.001
An independent-samples t-test was conducted to
compare Aesthetic literacy and reflection by the
experience of e-portfolio competition and results are
displayed in table 4. According to the results there
was a significance difference in Aesthetic literacy of
Habitual action by students without experience of e-
portfolio (M=2.89, SD=.687) and those with
experience (M=3,24, SD=.74); t=-2.656, p=0.000.
There was a significance difference in total aesthetic
literacy by students without experience of e-
portfolio (M=33.46; SD=6.01) and those with
experience of e-portfolio (M=37.05,SD=6.51); t=-
4.303, p=0.000. There was not a significance
difference in understanding, reflection, critical and
total reflective thinking.
Table 4: An independent-samples t-test for aesthetic
literacy and reflective thinking by the experience of e-
portfolio competition.
Dimensions
With
e-
portfolio
competiti
on
N Mean S.D. t
Sig.
(2-
tailed)
Habitual
action
No
1134 2.8924 .68781
-3.656 .000
Yes 55 3.2409 .74374
Understandi
ng
No
1134 3.9791 .61025
.610 .542
Yes 55 3.9273 .69999
Reflection
No
1134 3.8541 .59248
-.336 .737
Yes
55 3.8818 .69531
Critical
No
1134 3.5370 .57026
-1.304 .192
Yes
55 3.6409 .70179
Total
Aesthetic
literacy
No
1134 33.4656 6.01705
-4.303 .000
Yes
55 37.0545 6.51897
Reflective
thinking
No
1134 5.7050 .65509
-1.863 .063
Notes: *p<0.05, **p<0.01, ***p<0.001
5 CONCLUSIONS
Through a literature review and quantitative
statistical analysis, analysis of the results revealed
that there are tangible benefits related to the
utilization of e-portfolios. This research founds that
college freshmen’s reflection and aesthetic literacy
showed a moderate and positive correlation with the
construction of e-portfolios as learning process files.
Additionally, the level of correlation was higher if
the students had participated in e-portfolio
competitions. The results also indicated that external
encouragement was required to motivate students to
use e-portfolios to create learning process files due
to e-portfolios have still not yet been incorporated
into higher education curricula in Taiwan, which
means the use of e-portfolios is only promoted in
higher education, which is insufficient. This research
suggests that it required extra activities to guide
students to use E-Portfolio to set up their own
learning portfolio. Undertake the effective practices
within E-Portfolio, which will have efficiency gains
of enhance aesthetic literacy and student’s learning
CSEDU 2016 - 8th International Conference on Computer Supported Education
424
reflection were revealed. The findings of this
research presented the use of e-portfolios are able to
increases the correlation between reflection and
aesthetic literacy. Concisely, this paper attempted to
encourage the school educational utilizing e-
portfolios as an evaluation tool to achieve the
educational objectives of the 12-year compulsory
education curricula In Taiwan.
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
The authors would like to thank National Taichung
University of Education, Taiwan for financially
supporting this research under Contract No. NTCU-
104202. The authors would also like to thank the
students who participated in the evaluation.
REFERENCES
Barrett, H. C. (2010a). Balancing the Two Faces of E-
Portfolios Retrieved April 12, 2015, from http://elect
ronicportfolios.org/balance/balancingarticle2.pdf.
Barrett, H. C. (2005). White Paper: Researching
Electronic Portfolios and Learner Engagement
Retrieved April 12, 2015, from http://electronicportfoli
os.com/reflect/whitepaper.pdf.
Clinard, J., & Foster, L. (1998). Putting Art Standards into
Practice with Aesthetic Literacy. NASSP Bulletin,
82(597), 18-24.
Cheng Shufen (2011). Ability Scale aesthetic taste of the
preparation - A Case Study of College Students.
Unpublished master's thesis, the UIS education quiz
Taichung University of Education, Taichung.
Exploratorium. (2011). Art as a way of knowing: Readings
Retrieved May 15, 2015, from http://www.explorator
ium.edu/knowing/readings.html.
Greene, M. (1995). Active learning and aesthetic
encounters: talks at the Lincoln Center Institute, 1994.
New York: NCREST.
Jimmy Lin (2005). Social Theories about educational
philosophy of John Dewey. South Sinica, 39 (1), 41-
62.
Joyes, G., Gray, L. and Hartnell-Young, E. (2010)
Effective practice with e-portfolios: How can the UK
experience inform practice?, Australasian Journal of
Educational Technology, 2010, 26(1), 15-27.
Knight, G. R. (1998). Issues and Alternatives in
Educational Philosophy (3 edition ed.). Michigan:
Andrews University Press.
Kember, D., Leung, D. Y. P., Jones, A., Loke, A. Y.,
McKay, J., Sinclair, K., Yeung, E. (2000).
Development of a Questionnaire to Measure the Level
of Reflective Thinking. Assessment & Evaluation in
Higher Education, 25(4), 381-395.
Kember, D., Jones, A., Loke, A., McKay, J., Singlair, K.,
Tse, H., Yeung, E. (1999). Determining the level of
reflective thinking from students' written journals
using a coding scheme based on the work of Mezirow.
International Journal of Lifelong Education, 18(1),
18-30.
Mcdougall, M., Bevan, B., & Semper, R. (2011). Art as a
way of knowing Conference Report. Paper presented
at the Art as a way of knowing conference, San
Francisco, CA. http://www.exploratorium.edu/knowin
g/pdfs/ConferenceReport.pdf.
Ye Kun Ling (2010). American progressive education
movement (1919-1955) on the secondary education
reform. Bulletin of educational materials, 46,138-162.
Tuon Hung Wu (1985). Reliability and validity can
degrees and Behavior: Theory, Applications,
introspection (network updated version). Opinion
academic monograph, 29-53.
Wu Kun Wood (2009). Enlightenment of Dewey
experience of curriculum and teaching philosophy.
Taipei Municipal University of Education, 40 (1), 35-
54.
Zhang Yingyao, Shi Qinglin, Xiebai Qi (2011). Sun Yat-
sen basic literacy and core competencies assessment
scale of the planned construction of nuclear final
report. Kaohsiung: Sun Yat-sen.
The Effectiveness of e-Portfolios for Enhancing College Freshmen’s Reflection and Aesthetic Literacy
425