Search

Objective To determine the differential effects of a paper-based versus a web-based portfolio in terms of portfolio quality, user-friendliness and student motivation. Methods 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. Results 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. Conclusions 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. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]