Skip to main content
Springer Nature Link
Log in

Organizational schemata of e-portfolios for fostering higher-order thinking

  • Published:
Information Systems Frontiers Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

The information technology of online e-portfolio systems have been widely used during the past several years along with the diffusion of electronic teaching-learning systems. However, for the time being e-portfolio is viewed more as an assessment tool or a showcase tool, but less as an active learning tool. The current generic e-portfolio systems store artifacts in the chronological order on the course basis, providing few facets for active thinking. The question of how we can make e-portfolio a useful learning tool to improve students’ learning outcomes is still open to research. Among various students’ learning outcomes, higher-order thinking has become an important outcome of education. One vision of education evolution is to change the modes of thinking of students. This study is to meet the challenge of e-portfolios by investigating a significant research question: how e-portfolios can be used as a learning tool for students to foster higher-order thinking. Specifically, this study proposes an ontological approach to organizational schema of e-portfolios so that e-portfolios can be logically and dynamically organized into thinking-driven networks. The ontological schemata can serve as visible maps for the virtual e-portfolios repository shared by all teachers and students to foster higher-order thinking. A case study that implements a prototype of organizational schemata of e-portfolios demonstrates the usefulness of the proposed approach for fostering higher-order thinking.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Subscribe and save

Springer+ Basic
$34.99 /Month
  • Get 10 units per month
  • Download Article/Chapter or eBook
  • 1 Unit = 1 Article or 1 Chapter
  • Cancel anytime
Subscribe now

Buy Now

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4
Fig. 5

Similar content being viewed by others

Explore related subjects

Discover the latest articles, news and stories from top researchers in related subjects.

References

  • AACSB. (2003). Eligibility procedures and standards for business accreditation, Association to Advance Collegiate Schools of Business (AACSB) International, [Retrieved March 14, 2010 from http://www.aacsb.org].

  • Annis (Ferrill), L., & Jones, C. (1995). Student portfolios: Their objectives, development, and use. In P. Seldin & Associates (Eds.), Improving college teaching (pp. 181–190). Boston: Anker.

    Google Scholar 

  • Argyris, C., & Schon, D. A. (1988). Organizational learning. In D. S. Pugh (Ed.), Organization theory selected readings (pp. 352–370). New York: Penguin.

    Google Scholar 

  • Barolli, L., Koyama, A., Durresi, A., & De Marco, G. (2006). A web-based e-learning system for increasing study efficiency of stimulating learner’s motivation. Information Systems Frontiers, 8, 297–306.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Barrett, H. C. (1994). Technology-supported assessment portfolios. The Computing Teacher, 21, 9–12.

    Google Scholar 

  • Batterbee, L., & Dunham, A. (2004). Four years of reflection: The digital portfolio project at Albion College. In J. Zubizarreta (Ed.), The learning portfolio: Reflective practice for improving student learning (pp. 59–63). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bloom, B. S. (Ed.). (1956). Taxonomy of educational objectives: The classification of educational goals, Handbook I: Cognitive domain. Green: Longmans.

    Google Scholar 

  • Boland, R. J., & Collopy, F. (Eds.). (2004). Managing as designing. Stanford: Stanford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bruder, I. (1993). Alternative assessment: Putting technology to the test. Electronic Learning, 12, 12–28.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bushweller, K. (1995). The high-tech portfolio. The Executive Educator, 17, 19–22.

    Google Scholar 

  • Carchiolo, V., Longheu, A., Malgeri, M., & Mangioni, G. (2007). A model for a web-based learning system. Information Systems Frontiers, 9, 267–282.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cohen, E., & Nycz, M. (2006). Learning objects e-learning: An informing science perspective. Interdisciplinary Journal of Knowledge and Learning Objects, 2, 23–24.

    Google Scholar 

  • Collis, B., & Strijker, A. (2003). Re-usable learning objects in context. International Journal on E-Learning, 2(4), 5–16.

    Google Scholar 

  • CW (2010). Chalk & Wire, [Retrieved March 14, 2010 from http://www.chalkandwire.com/eportfolio].

  • DC (2010). Dublin core metadata initiative, [Retrieved March 14, 2010 from http://dublincore.org].

  • Devedzic, V. (2004). Education and the semantic web. International Journal of Artificial Intelligence in Education, 14, 39–65.

    Google Scholar 

  • Drier, H. N. (1997). Career portfolios — don’t leave home without one. Career Planning & Adult Development Journal, 12(4), 55–60.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dunne, D., & Martin, R. (2006). Design thinking and how it will change management education: An interview and discussion. Academy of Management Learning & Education, 5(4), 512–523.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Eliot, J. (1987). Models of psychological space: Psychometric, developmental, and experimental approaches. New York: Springer-Verlag.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ericsson, K. A., & Smith, J. (1991). Toward a general theory of expertise: Prospects and limits. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Eysenck, M. W. (1993). Principles of cognitive psychology. Hillsdale: Lawrence Erlbaum.

    Google Scholar 

  • foliotek (2010). foliotek e-portfolio system, [Retrieved March 5, 2010 from http://www.foliotek.com/].

  • Greenberg, G. (2004). The digital convergence: Extending the portfolio. Educause Review, 39(4), 28–36.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gregor, S. (2006). The nature of theory in information systems. MIS Quarterly, 30(3), 611–635.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gruber, T. (1993). A translation approach to portable ontology specifications. Knowledge Acquisition, 5(2), 199–220.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gruber, T. (1995). Toward principles for the design of ontologies used for knowledge sharing. International Journal of Human Computer Studies, 43(5/6), 907–928.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Guarino, N. (1995). Formal ontology, conceptual analysis and knowledge representation. International Journal of Human Computer Studies, 43(5/6), 625–640.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Harman, K., & Koohang, A. (2005). Discussion board: A learning object. Interdisciplinary Journal of Knowledge and Learning Objects, 1, 67–77.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hevner, A. R., March, S. T., Park, J., & Ram, S. (2004). Design science in information system research. MIS Quarterly, 28(1), 75–105.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hjorland, B., & Albrechtsen, H. (1995). Toward a new horizon in information science: Domain analysis. Journal of the American Society for Information Science, 46(6), 400–425.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • IEEE LTSC (2010). IEEE learning technology standards committee. [Retrieved March 15, 2010 from http://ieeeltsc.org].

  • IMS (2006). IMS Meta-data Best Practice Guide for IEE 1484.12.1-2002 Standard for Learning Object Metadata Version 1.3 Final Specification. [Retrieved March 13, 2010, from http://www.imsproject.org/metadata/].

  • Jenkins, E. K. (1998). The significant role of critical thinking in predicting auditing student’s performance. Journal of Education for Business, 73, 274–279.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jones, D., & Gregor, S. (2007). The anatomy of a design theory. Journal of the Association for Information Systems, 8(5), 312–335.

    Google Scholar 

  • KEEP (2010). KEEP toolkit, [Retrieved March 15, 2010 from http://www.cfkeep.org/static/index.html].

  • Kida, T. (2006). Don’t believe everything you think: The 6 basic mistakes we make in thinking. Amherst: Prometheus Books.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kim, D. H. (1993). The link between individual and organizational learning. Sloan Management Review, 35(1), 37–50.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kirkwood, M. (2000). Infusing higher-order thinking and learning to learn into content instruction: A case study of secondary computing studies in Scotland. Journal of Curriculum Studies, 32(4), 509–535.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Koohang, A. (2004). Creating learning objects in collaborative e-learning settings. Issues in Information Systems, 4(2), 584–590.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kurfiss, J. G. (1988). Critical thinking: Theory, research, practice, and possibilities. ASHE-ERIC Higher Education Report No.2, ASHE, Washington, DC.

  • Lumsden, J. A., Garis, J. W., Reardon, R. C., Unger, M. P., & Arkin, S. (2001). A blueprint for building an online career portfolio. Journal of Career Planning and Employment, 62(1), 33–38.

    Google Scholar 

  • McCowan, C., Harper, W., & Hauville, K. (2005). Student e-portfolio: The successful implementation of an e-portfolio across a major Australian university. Australian Journal of Career Development, 14(2), 40–52.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mustaro, P. N., & Silveira, I. F. (2006). Learning objects: Adaptive retrieval through learning styles. Interdisciplinary Journal of Knowledge and Learning Objects, 2, 35–46.

    Google Scholar 

  • Myers, I. B. (1962). Introduction to type: A description of the theory and applications of the Myers-Briggs type indicator. Palo Alto: Consulting Psychologists Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Namuth, D., Fritz, S., King, J., & Boren, A. (2005). Principles of sustainable learning object libraries. Interdisciplinary Journal of Knowledge and Learning Objects, 1, 181–196.

    Google Scholar 

  • OSP (2005). Open-Source Portfolio, White paper: Understanding OSP. [Retrieved March 15, 2010 from http://www.rsmart.com/assets/understandingOSP_Dec2005.pdf].

  • OWL (2010). Web Ontology Language (OWL), [Retrieved March 12, 2010 from http://www.w3.org/TR/owl-features/].

  • Page, D., & Mukherjee, A. (2007). Promoting critical-thinking skills by using negotiation exercises. Journal of Education for Business, 82, 251–257.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Peach, B. E., Mukherjee, A., & Hornyak, M. (2007). Assessing critical thinking: A college’s journey and lessons learned. Journal of Education for Business, 82, 313–320.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Peirce, C. S. P. (1997). Pragmatism as a principle and method of right thinking. In P. A. Turrisi (Ed.), The 1903 Harvard lectures on pragmatism. Albany: State University of New York Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Perkins, D., Jay, E., & Tishman, S. (1993a). Introduction: New conceptions of thinking. Educational Psychologist, 28(1), 1–5.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Perkins, D., Jay, E., & Tishman, S. (1993b). New conceptions of thinking: From ontology to education. Educational Psychologist, 28(1), 67–85.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Plous, S. (1993). The psychology of judgment and decision making. New York: McGraw-Hill.

    Google Scholar 

  • Prieto-Diaz, R. (1990). Domain analysis: An introduction. ACM SIGSOFT Software Engineering Notes, 15(2), 47–54.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Quillian, R. (1968). Semantic memory. In M. Minsky (Ed.), Semantic information processing. Cambridge: MIT Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ritchhart, R. (2002). Intellectual character: What it is, why it matters, and how to get it. San Francisco: Jossey Bass.

    Google Scholar 

  • Senge, P. M. (1990). The fifth discipline: The art and practice of the learning organization. New York: Currency/Doubleday.

  • Senge, P. M. (1996). Systems thinking. Executive Excellence, 13(1), 15–16.

    Google Scholar 

  • Shen, L., Callaghan, V., & Shen, R. (2008). Affective e-learning in residential and pervasive computing environments. Information Systems Frontiers, 10(4), 461–472.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sicilia, M. A., & Lytras, M. (2005). On the representation of change according to different ontologies of learning. International Journal of Learning and Change, 1(1), 66–79.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Simon, H. A. (1976). Administrative behavior (3rd ed.). New York: The Free Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Simon, H. A. (1996). The sciences of the artificial (3rd ed.). Cambridge: The MIT Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Singh, G., Hawkins, L., & Whymark, G. (2007). An integrated model of collaborative knowledge building. Interdisciplinary Journal of Knowledge and Learning Objects, 3, 85–105.

    Google Scholar 

  • Smrz, P. (2004). Integrating ontologies into learning management systems — A case of Czech. In R. Meersman, Z. Tari & A. Corsaro, OTM Workshops, LNCS 3292, 768–772.

  • Snae, C., & Brueckner, M. (2007). Ontology-driven e-learning system based on roles and activities for Thai learning environment. Interdisciplinary Journal of Knowledge and Learning Objects, 3, 1–17.

    Google Scholar 

  • TaskStream (2010). TaskStream e-portfolio system, [Retrieved March 12, 2010 from https://www.taskstream.com/pub/].

  • Thurston, E. K. (2000). Enabling systems thinking in the “Mesonic Millennium”: The need for systemic methodologies for conceptual learning in undergraduate management education. Journal of Management Education, 24(1), 10–31.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Walls, J. G., Widmeyer, G. R., & El Sawy, O. A. (1992). Building an information design theory for vigilant EIS. Information Systems Research, 3(1), 36–59.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wang, S. (1999a). Analyzing business information systems: An object-oriented approach. Boca Raton: CRC Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wang, S. (1999b). Organizational memory information system: A domain analysis in the object-oriented paradigm. Information Resources Management Journal, 12(2), 26–35.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wang, S. (2008). Ontology of learning objects repository for educational knowledge sharing. Interdisciplinary Journal of Knowledge and Learning Objects, 4, 1–12.

    Google Scholar 

  • Warnick, B., & Inch, E. S. (1994). Critical thinking and communication (2nd ed.). New York: Macmillan.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wiley, D. A. (2000). Learning object design and sequencing theory, Unpublished PhD Thesis, Brigham Young University, 2000.

  • Wiley, D. A., & Edwards, E. K. (2002). Online self-organizing social systems: The decentralized future of online learning. Quarterly Review of Distance Education, 3(1), 33–46.

    Google Scholar 

  • W3C (2010). World Wide Web Consortium, [Retrieved March 18, 2010 from http://www.w3.org/].

  • Zhang, D., & Nunamaker, J. F. (2003). Powering e-learning in the new millennium: An overview of e-learning and enabling technology. Information Systems Frontiers, 5(2), 207–218.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Zhang, S. X., Olfman, L., & Rectham, P. (2007). Designing eportfolio 2.0: Integrating and coordinating web 2.0 services with eportfolio systems for enhancing users’ learning. Journal of Information Systems Education, 18(2), 203–214.

    Google Scholar 

  • Zouaq, A., Nkambou, R., & Frasson, C. (2007). An integrated approach for automatic aggregation of learning knowledge objects. Interdisciplinary Journal of Knowledge and Learning Objects, 3, 135–162.

    Google Scholar 

  • Zubizarreta, J. (2004). The learning portfolio: Reflective practice for improving student learning. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgement

The comments of two anonymous reviewers have contributed significantly to the revision of this paper.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. University of Massachusetts Dartmouth, North Dartmouth, MA, USA

    Shouhong Wang

  2. Saint Mary’s University, Halifax, NS, Canada

    Hai Wang

Authors
  1. Shouhong Wang
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Hai Wang
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Shouhong Wang.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Wang, S., Wang, H. Organizational schemata of e-portfolios for fostering higher-order thinking. Inf Syst Front 14, 395–407 (2012). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10796-010-9262-0

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10796-010-9262-0

Keywords

Search

Navigation