**4. Findings**

The survey questionnaire was divided into two sections which are actually in line with the underpinned research questions—participants' perception toward e-portfolios and their development and growth. Perception toward e-portfolios is presented in two parts: firstly, the general perceptions toward e-portfolio (**Figure 1**) and secondly, the perceived development (**Figures 2**–**4**) and challenges of creating e-portfolio (**Figure 5**).

**Figure 1.** *General perceptions toward e-portfolio.*

#### *Reflection of Pre-Service ESL Teachers on Using e-Portfolio in Teacher Education DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.5772/intechopen.100158*

#### **Figure 2.**

*Development of language skill.*

#### **Figure 3.** *Development of Assessment skill.*

#### **Figure 4.**

*Development of learning skill.*

#### **Figure 5.** *Development of pedagogical skills.*

## **4.1 General perceptions toward e-portfolio**

The **Figure 1** shows the mean score for each of thirteen items which ranged between 3.1 and 4.08. The overall mean 3.48 indicates that participants generally perceived e-portfolios positively. It can be noted that the score in 'enjoyed the creation procedure' is slightly higher than in 'felt interest'. The mean scores for the responses indicate that pre-service ESL teachers felt comparatively less interested to develop e-portfolios at the beginning (Mean 3.1). From such comparison, it can be assumed that participants felt agony at the early stage due to unfamiliarity with the e-portfolios and difficulties to connect it with the course outline. Moreover, they faced difficulties (Mean 3.16) to create e-portfolio as well. However, they took the e-portfolio project as a challenge, and later, enjoyed the creation procedure (Mean 3.70).

E-portfolios helped them to reflect on their learning experiences (Mean 4.02), share ideas open-mindedly with other participants (Mean 3.94) and, in turn, to become reflective thinker (Mean 3.97). In such way, e-portfolio facilitated the pre-service ESL teachers to learn course materials deeply (Mean 3.72). Data also confirmed that developing e-portfolio enhanced language skills (Mean 3.89), ICT skill (Mean 4.08), communication skill (Mean 4.05) and pedagogical skill (Mean 3.72). E-portfolios were not only considered as a tool for learning but also to document the learning process (Mean 3.89), which made them aware about the readiness as a future teacher (mean 3.94). It resulted in the feeling of ownership among participants (Mean 3.97) after the e-portfolio project was finished.

#### **4.2 Perceived development**

Participants claimed that e-portfolio certainly significantly contributed to their language, assessment, learning and pedagogical skills.

#### *4.2.1 Development of language skill*

Particularly for the enhancement of linguistic ability, the mean score of participants' responses is more than four in each case (**Figure 2**). Therefore, it can be claimed that creation of e-portfolio allowed the participants to implement ICT in language learning (Mean 4.21) which enhanced their reading (Mean 4.1) and writing skill (Mean 4.18). They were also able to assess their own linguistic ability (Mean 4.16) which led them to understand their role as language teacher (Mean 4.24).

#### *4.2.2 Development of assessment skill*

Regarding assessment participants considered e-portfolio as an effective tool as well since it can develop accountability and responsibility (4.02) to measure various learning objectives (Mean 3.91), increase self-assessment (3.91) and critical thinking (4). As such, participants perceived that e-portfolio is more powerful than single measure (Mean 3.72).

## *4.2.3 Development of Learning skill*

During the e-portfolio creation procedure, participants browsed the e-portfolios of most of their classmates (3.56) which helped them to reflect on merits (3.81) or shortcomings (3.94) of postings. Such process gave the participants opportunity to examine individual learning outcomes (Mean 4.1) and later, deepened classroom learning (Mean 4.08). Most importantly, participants enjoyed such learning strategy (Mean 4.1).

#### *4.2.4 Development of pedagogical skill*

In addition, it was also supposed that pedagogical skills were enhanced through e-portfolio since assisted them to understand content knowledge (4.08), teaching learning approaches (3.81), contextual problems (4.02) and the role of teachers (3.75).

#### **4.3 Challenges**

Apart from the development and growth, participants also claimed that they have faced several challenges to use e-portfolios which include internet connection, workload and time constraint, quality of contribution, and value issues.

#### *4.3.1 Internet connection*

Among the challenges, lack of access of Internet connection was identified and opined as the most crucial, because "not all students have computers, needless to say access to the Internet" (RJA2). For example, it was claimed "Internet connection was a big problem", and therefore, "some students might not have the convenience to go online to the website freely" (RJA5). Although participants agreed that it cannot be blamed as the disadvantage of e-portfolio (RJA5), however, for the meaningful execution of any ICT-based appliance these two are the primary requirement (InA2). Such situation hampered the participants to upload their work timely (RJA4) or make e-portfolio going as fluent as they wanted. This was particularly true for the participants who resided in the campus and relied on the wireless connection provided by the University. They argued that CI may think it as a 'dummy excuse', but for them it was 'more than annoying' reality (RJH1). One participant expressed her annoyance "the only challenge that I had is the wireless connection, it is irritating. I was typing so fast and when wanted to post my view the internet connection is gone" (RJA1). To upload the RJs, such situation was endurable since they could "write it down first and then just cut and paste it" when they were online (RJE6). Participants were required to find place to be online (RJB7), awake till midnight to upload materials (RJE6) or even did not depend on the university server (RJC4). Such frustrating situation led them to state "I wish if we can just print all the RJs and save all the disappointment(s)" (RJH3). Such lack of Internet access "definitely reduced interest" (RJC5) and inculcated their enthusiasm to accomplish works through the e-portfolio (RJF1).

#### *4.3.2 Workload and time constraint*

Participants revealed time constraint is another challenge to make the e-portfolio effective. Although it was agreed that the "concept of e-portfolio is nice" (RJB7), but 'after several weeks of uploading files, posting RJs and RJs', it was claimed that 'e-portfolio is time consuming phenomenon' (RJA2). One participant explained:

*I was required to post RJs and RJs on time. To do this, I need to get extra time to post comments and discussions. Besides, e-portfolios require me to do extra research to write. I need extra time to search extra information and complete RJs (RJF1).*

Therefore, using e-portfolios became a durable task as they had to care for other RJs 'with equally heavy workload and mark allocation' (RJA2). One participant stated, "when many assignments to submit I had no free time to open my e-portfolio" (RJI3). Awful internet connection made the process 'tougher and harder' (RJC3). As a result, to "complete the RJs was the big challenge" for them (RJD6). It was argued that the mark allocated for these tasks was comparatively nominal. One participant commented "the workload is quite heavy and time-consuming and deserves more percentage of mark" (RJE2). Under such circumstance it was perceived-- "it was too much to ask everyone to post at least one RJ per week" (RJB7) or "too many things to learn since it is the first time, we exposed to this" (RJG2). Since participants had 'other commitments and workloads' (InG1), quality of writing decrease. Therefore, one participant asserted-- "we had the tendency to just write for the sake of mark not with the willingness to write" (RJD6). Sometimes they "tend to beat around the bush, repeating and paraphrasing what others have said" (RJE1).

#### *4.3.3 Quality of contribution*

Participants noticed that because of reluctance or neglecting attitude toward responsibilities, few members remain passive and 'cheat by not contributing at all' or believed that "at least someone will contribute" (RJH3). It was argued that such situation discouraged others' enthusiastic participation. For example, one participant stated "if our comments do not get response from others, it definitely reduces our interest… I felt same when some of my friends did not response to my comments" (RJC5). Moreover, there were students who "do not care about contributing ideas in e-portfolios" (RJF3) or their postings were not valuable for being discussed or debated (RJD6). For example, one participant criticized "many students are not serious when they reply to their comments and just send their comments because they are required to do so" (RJF1) or they tend to "agree and repeat other's points" (RJE6). It was realized that such kind of postings are useless and noted that "higher quantity does not imply decent quality" (RJE6). Hence, participants suggested others to rethink--"am I posting the discussion just for the sake of posting" (RJC4) or "do we tend to emphasize on quantity of posting instead of the quality" (RJE6). However, few reasons were identified in this regard, firstly, there are students who do not have the ability to work independently (RJF3); secondly, they used the same source from Internet to get information (InA2); and thirdly, from the believe that CI would not be able to evaluate the large number of the postings within the time frame (InI4).

#### *4.3.4 Value issues*

Plagiarism is another issue that could hinder the quality of the contribution, participants supposed. It was unquestionably agreed that e-portfolio gives students' 'freedom' to use Internet to collect information for educational purposes. But they noticed that "students might use this opportunity to simply copy and paste from the internet and use it as their own" (RJH2). It contradicts with the aim of using e-portfolio and they are 'actually not gaining advantages' from it (RJA4). However, such practice was not acknowledged, rather expressed their frustration "I thought that each and every of them did their job well without plagiarizing. But today I found one of my group mates is guilty… the moment you started reading, you can tell that it was not his work. I am disappointed and feeling sorry for him" (RJB7). Therefore, it was suggested, CI should remain more observant and needs to consider this issue while giving grades (RJA4).
