Driessen Erik W, Muijtjens Arno M M, van Tartwijk Jan, van der Vleuten Cees P M
Department of Educational Development and Research, Faculty of Medicine, University of Maastricht, Maastricht, The Netherlands.
Med Educ. 2007 Nov;41(11):1067-73. doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2923.2007.02859.x.
To determine the differential effects of a paper-based versus a web-based portfolio in terms of portfolio quality, user-friendliness and student motivation.
An experimental design was used to compare Year 1 medical students' reflective portfolios. The portfolios differed in presentation medium only (i.e. web-based versus paper-based). Content analysis, a student questionnaire and mentor interviews were used to evaluate portfolio quality, user-friendliness and student motivation. A total of 92 portfolios were scored independently by 2 raters using a portfolio quality-rating instrument.
Portfolio structure, quality of reflection and quality of evidence showed no significant effects of presentation medium. Multi-level analysis showed a significant effect for student motivation: web-based portfolios scored 0.39 more than paper-based portfolios (P < 0.05; effect size 0.76). The mentors reported no differences in portfolio quality, except that there were more visuals in web-based portfolios. Students spent significantly more time preparing the web-based than the paper-based portfolios (15.4 hours versus 12.2 hours; t = 2.1, P < 0.05; effect size 0.46). The 2 student groups did not differ significantly in terms of their satisfaction with the portfolio. The mentors perceived the web-based portfolios as more user-friendly.
The web-based portfolios were found to enhance students' motivation, were more user-friendly for mentors, and delivered the same content quality compared with paper-based portfolios. This suggests that web-based presentation may promote acceptance of portfolios by students and teachers alike.
确定纸质档案袋与网络档案袋在档案袋质量、用户友好性和学生积极性方面的差异影响。
采用实验设计比较一年级医学生的反思性档案袋。这些档案袋仅在呈现媒介上有所不同（即网络版与纸质版）。使用内容分析、学生问卷和导师访谈来评估档案袋质量、用户友好性和学生积极性。两名评分者使用档案袋质量评分工具对总共92个档案袋进行独立评分。
档案袋结构、反思质量和证据质量在呈现媒介方面没有显著影响。多层次分析显示学生积极性有显著影响：网络档案袋的得分比纸质档案袋高0.39（P < 0.05；效应大小为0.76）。导师报告档案袋质量没有差异，只是网络档案袋中的视觉元素更多。学生准备网络档案袋花费的时间明显多于纸质档案袋（15.4小时对12.2小时；t = 2.1，P < 0.05；效应大小为0.46）。两个学生组对档案袋的满意度没有显著差异。导师认为网络档案袋更便于使用。
发现网络档案袋能提高学生的积极性，对导师来说更便于使用，并且与纸质档案袋相比内容质量相同。这表明网络呈现方式可能会促进学生和教师对档案袋的接受。
