Computers & Education 49 (2007) 160–175

www.elsevier.com/locate/compedu

E-Homebook System: A web-based interactive

education interface q
Hsi-mei Chen *, Cris Yu, Cheng-sian Chang
Department of Information Management, Kun Shan University, Tainan Hsien 710, Taiwan, ROC

Received 15 January 2005; accepted 13 May 2005

Abstract

ChildrenÕs academic performance and social competence in school is positively associated with parent
involvement. However, the researches about educational learning models often ignore the parent part.
Moreover, Internet forms a new paradigm, education and communication approach is more complicated
than ever. In this paper, we would like to introduce an Education Wheel model (EWM) which includes stu-
dents, teachers and parents in the education environment. Under EWM framework, we design an E-Home-
book System (EHS) with agents which provide a teacher–parent–student communication interface through
Internet. The EHS comprises intelligent agents: interaction agent, instruction agent, information agent,
evaluation agent and log agent. The agents manage a learning portfolio conception, observe and record stu-
dentsÕ e-learning behavior through the web log, and provide teachers a reference of portfolio information.
The agents adopt a trigger function to analyze the studentsÕ learning behavior from Internet as well as from
classroom, evaluate overall performance, then send an e-mail message automatically to the teachers and
parents to guide and assist the students who need to revise their learning attitude. Similarly, the agents will
record parentsÕ participation portfolio, then teachers may draft better communication strategy. The EHS
provides a better communication role between students–parents–teachers, implements an integrated perfor-
mance measurement method, and conducts a better teaching strategy support interface for elementary
education.
Ó 2005 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

q
We are grateful to the anonymous reviewer for the valuable suggestions on an earlier version of this article.
*
Corresponding author. Tel.: +886 6 2050115; fax: +886 6 2050545.
E-mail address: hmchen@mail.ksut.edu.tw (H.-m. Chen).

0360-1315/$ - see front matter Ó 2005 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
doi:10.1016/j.compedu.2005.05.003
 H.-m. Chen et al. / Computers & Education 49 (2007) 160–175 161

Keywords: E-learning; Learning performance; Parent involvement

1. Introduction

Students spent a lot time in different learning environment including classrooms, schools and
family. Learning activities are preceded in the learning environment. Traditionally, teachers dom-
inant the learning procedure, design teaching materials and assess the learning performance.
However, parents also play an essential role in students learning behavior.
Parents involvement perform in many different way, but may category into five fields: parent
expectations, a home structure for learning, educational communication between parents, schools,
and students, parent participation in school activities and parent participation in school decision
making (Christenson, Rounds, & Gorney, 1992; Epstein, 1987, 1995). Some researches shows that
parent involvement differ in gender, ethnic group, student age, parental education level, and single
parent status (Keith et al., 1998; Kohl, Lengua, & McMahon, 2000). Parent involvement in school
is associated with more positive academic performance (Christenson & Conoley, 1992; Kohl et al.,
2000; Shumow, 1998; Keith et al., 1998) and social competence in children.
In Taiwan, the ‘‘Teacher Law’’ endows parent involvement in school decision making legally.
Parents participation in education environment are beneficial to student learning performance
and human resource nurture. The research in Taiwan shows that parents have positive and favor-
able attitude and highly motivation to their involvement but teachers make efforts to involve par-
ents with only slight results. Parents attribute rather greater commitment to parent involvement
with the teachers (Krumm, 1996). However, there are inadequacies in current measures of parent
involvement. Educational reform in Taiwan recently has caused confuse and need more interac-
tion to acquire common view about future. The well communication between parents, teachers
and students is more important than ever.
As the main communication approach between parents and teachers, traditional homebook
used in many elementary schools in Taiwan is a paper notebook. Teachers have to request stu-
dents to write down the daily notice on paper homebook. In case special events, there is not en-
ough space or time to write it down. Teachers have to write another letter of notice or even make a
lot of phone calls. If there are special topics needed more discussion, teachers have to wait for the
next-day reply on homebook. However, it usually has to spend a lot of time recording and
exchanging opinions. In this undirected way, it is not only lack of efficiency, but also easily comes
up with man-made negligence, e.g., forgotten, damaged, missing, stolen signature, and so on. This
communication method between parents and teachers is easily broken off.
The traditional homebook is also unable to provide timely and adequately discussion interface
if students having behavioral or intellectual problems. For example, students may have bad learn-
ing attitude on schoolwork or lack of expressing opinion before crowd. Teachers are not willing to
write down discipline recommendation that may be read by students. The discussion between par-
ents is also unavailable by traditional homebook. The other communication way for example, by
telephone or personal meeting, is very time consuming. The waiting, negotiation and communi-
cation time is expected. There must be some other approach for better communication.
The traditional intellectual assessment is evaluated by classroom participation, test or assign-
ment. However, the studentÕs after-class learning attitude is ignored and teachers are unable to
162 H.-m. Chen et al. / Computers & Education 49 (2007) 160–175

weigh up multi-dimension conception. How to assess studentsÕ internet-learning attitude is a hot

issue since internet is very popular and learning through internet is inevitable. Not only teachers
and parents have to change by preceding a guide learning to the students, but also the students
have to change their original passive learning attitude, and automatically construct their knowl-
edge structure. The relationship among teachers, parents and students have changed. The internet
is not only a learning interface, but also provides a well communication and assessment tool.
This research would like to propose a model which includes teacher, student and parent in a
learning environment – Education Wheel model (EWM). Under this framework, we suggest a
new communication and assessment approach for teacher–parent–student through Internet, the
Electronic Homebook System (EHS). The EHS applies the portfolio assessment in an e-learning
environment. A portfolio conception is addressed in order to observe and record studentsÕ learn-
ing behavior through the web log, provide teachers a reference of portfolio information to eval-
uate learning performance and promote learning outcomes. The portfolio analysis is also applied
to analyze parent participation behavior.
Section 2 introduces some basic concepts: (1) to review computer-based education models;
(2) to review e-learning systems; (3) to review the portfolio references; (4) to introduce the tri-
sectioned EWM; (5) to describe how our systems has been designed, implemented and validated;
and (6) to describe how the prototype system delivers user-adaptive, interactive virtual functions
on the Web.

2. Literature review

2.1. Review of computer-based education models

Internet technology empowers the joint exploration of the delivery mechanisms and adds
stronger collaborative learning elements. There is a substantial change from an instructor-
led approach to a real learner-centered approach. Although physical classroom exists, interac-
tion among participants with diverse background and experience are more learning-oriented in
the virtual classroom. The processes of collaboration and communication between learners and
teachers are increasingly computer-mediated, such as via the Internet (Lee, Hong, & Ling,
2001). Passerini and Granger (2000) develop a hybrid model for internet learning. This model
integrates constructivist and objectivist approaches to instructional design. It includes five step-
by-step phases: analysis, design, development, education, delivery. Cloete (2001) defines an
electronic educational system model to assist the designers of different e-learning settings to
plan and implement a specific learning situation, with the focus on the individual requirements
and milieu of the learning group. The four layers are instructional layer, education middleware
layer, e-paradigm layer and physical layer. The evaluation methods are summative and forma-
tive. In an e-learning system, one may choose selected method(s) to analyze oneÕs learning
situation.
Although the parent involvement is very important in elementary education, the traditional
learning models stress only on the development and communication parts, often ignore that
the learning performance is an integrated outcome by the students, school and family involve-
ment. The learning model for elementary education should be modified.
 H.-m. Chen et al. / Computers & Education 49 (2007) 160–175 163

2.2. Review of web-based learning systems

Currently there has been an increasing interest in the research and implementation of electronic
learning system. Ayala and Yano (1998) propose a framework for an agent-based Computer Sup-
ported Collaborative Learning (CSCL) environment which can promote the effective collabora-
tion and the creation of Zones of proximal development in a learning group. The agents focus
on distributing domain knowledge sources to assist the learners in the application of domain
knowledge and designing to cooperate in order to support the conditions for effective collabora-
tion in a networked community of practice. Shin, Yoon, Lee, and Lee (2002) focus on a virtual lab
which provides more teachware and experiment suites and a quantitative evaluation on the edu-
cational efficiency of using the proposed system and the new teaching model. These learning sys-
tems are more stressed on the effectiveness and efficiency of the teaching material and student
feedback. The EduCities (Chan, Hue, Chou, & Tzeng, 2001) and its upgraded version EduXs
(Chang, Yang, Deng, & Chan, 2003) is a popular educational portal in Taiwan, and supports
the establishment of online social learning communities. The main users are teachers, students
and parents who can establish online social learning communities reflecting physical communities.
However, the learning contents applying to usersÕ learning activities need to be implemented.
Chen, Lee, and Chen (2005) proposes the internet learning should consider both material difficulty
and learner ability to provide individual learning paths for learners. The personalized service pro-
vided by e-learning systems like learner preferences, interests and browsing behaviors is more
important than ever.

2.3. Review of portfolio

A portfolio is a collection of student work. Many experts have defined portfolios as a strategy
for increasing the visibility of student learning. It has stated that portfolio is a purposeful collec-
tion of student work that tells the story of student achievement or growth (Alter, Spandel, & Cul-
ham, 1994). Portfolios helped students become more aware of peers as audience, as well as create
their own public community of writers (Wall & Peltier, 1996). Portfolios are not only used to as-
sess studentsÕ learning performance, but also to promote learning and the effectiveness of instruc-
tion. Portfolios may contain a variety of items: rough drafts, graded assignments, papers,
showcase pieces, critiques or summaries of reader, self-reflection pieces, homework assignment,
journal entries, peer responses, graphics, spreadsheets, and even online discussions. Portfolios be-
come popular because of its convenience to use and to provide online feedback and search mech-
anisms. Throughout portfolios can observe and record students performing various learning
activities in a learning system, such as reading, messaging, conferencing, accessing document,
and participating in interactivities.
Assessment was the original intent of the portfolio movement. Jacobson, Sliecher, and Burke
(1999) indicates portfolio assessment recognizes that learning is not always easily quantifiable,
and calls on students to demonstrate their learning by selecting and presenting examples of their
best work. Kicklighter (1999) utilizes course portfolio as an investigation, enables educators to
organize selected details of their teaching effort and engage in a reflective analysis that leads to
viable conclusions about instructional performance and student outcomes. It seems to be guiding
the studentÕs assessment of the portfolio, which is, guiding the studentÕs reflection, self-evaluation,
164 H.-m. Chen et al. / Computers & Education 49 (2007) 160–175

and narrative describing the portfolio artifacts. Stressing the importance of portfolios shows the
studentÕs range, depth and growth.
Many education units use portfolio to evaluate the studentsÕ learning performance and out-
comes. However, the use of portfolio is not unlimited. In traditional assessment, teachers are pos-
sibly fully occupied with looking after the learning act of the students at school; the portfolio may
increase their workload. Some researcher (Panitz, 1996) indicates that for large classes, the grad-
ing may be too much. Another drawback is that some students resist this new form of assessment.
Wade and Yarbrough (1996) recommend that for using portfolios in teacher education programs
include: focusing attention on studentsÕ initial understanding of the process and its purpose,
encouraging student ownership and individual expression, providing some structured aspects to
balance the open-ended nature of portfolios, and evaluating the portfolio process and studentsÕ
responses.

3. Education Wheel model

In this research, we propose an EWM. EWM describes that in an education environment,

teachers, students and parents are essential components. The three parts connect firmly, inter-
act closely and keep the core – learning performance growing. Teachers, as the dominating
role in EWM, have diverse abilities and professional knowledge to design teaching material,
set teaching objective, establish evaluation criteria, frame the teaching strategies, and assess
learning performance in different course level. If the learning performances of students are
deviated from course objective, teachers have to reorganize the teaching resources and refine
the teaching strategy.
Students, the target of education, with inherent personal characteristics make different learn-
ing objective pursing. The learning skills, abilities and knowledge developed in learning process
integrate the learning competencies (Voorhees, 2001). The performance of learning is to eval-
uate if a studentÕs competencies have achieved the learning objectives. Parents partly support
and partly participate in children achievement seeking process. Parent involvement and atten-
tion not only influence present learning behavior, but also lay a foundation to future learning.
Parent expectation or aspirations was a composite of parentsÕ education aspirations for their
children.
Educational communication was a composite of items concerning the amount of communica-
tion between parents and their children about school and school activities. Family structure, nor-
mally stress on the family economic factors, for example, family cost and income, still include the
familyÕs social structure, motherÕs language, single-family status, and child-rearing beliefs. Parents
may participate in school affairs in different ways. Parent may voluntarily serve school or class
activities, offer consult informally, or participate in school decision making formally. Parents
involvement is a positive guiding to students performance.
Programs to increase home–school collaboration and parent involvement are important. Those
programs should include efforts to nurture high aspirations and expectations or parents have to
foster communication between parents and students about school activities and future plans. In
Fig. 1, the EWM providing an integrated user interface shows that learning environment is chang-
ing and the parent–student–teacher relationship is connected together. Each entityÕs behavior is
 H.-m. Chen et al. / Computers & Education 49 (2007) 160–175 165

Learning Environment

Parent Home
Expectation Structure

Learning Educational
Competencies Communication
Parents

Parent
Participation
Learning Learning
Students
Abilities Performance
Learning
Strategies
Teachers frame
Personal
Characteristics Learning
Teaching Assessment
Material
Design

Fig. 1. Educational Wheel Model.

interacted through learning environment, no matter physical or virtual classroom, and then affects
the learning performance.

4. E-Homebook System

4.1. EHS functions

Through the computer assisted learning, the infrastructure of EWM is better presented. The
EHS provides a valuable educational interface and teaching strategic support system. The main
functions of the EHS are described as following:

4.1.1. Providing a common communication bridge

This EHS is constructed through internet. It provides an interface that shortens the gap
among teachers, parents and students. Teachers may post the daily notice easily to the whole
class, even to a specific person. Parents may response to teachers directly without worrying the
kidÕs impression. Parents can discuss with other parents for a special topic deeply anytime and
anyplace.
166 H.-m. Chen et al. / Computers & Education 49 (2007) 160–175

4.1.2. Applying learning portfolio technique to performance assessment

Portfolio as a purposeful collection shows the studentÕs efforts, progress and achievements. The
portfolio process must involve the student in establishing criteria for selection of their work, deter-
mining the actual contents of their portfolio, and judging the merit of their work (Lewis & Kli-
tzke, 1995). Teachers set up the performance requirement and standard, identify the
pedagogical principles, and assess the performance. The process constitute effective learning in
either electronic or classroom environment underlying the teaching and learning activities.

4.1.3. Applying participating portfolio technique to parent involvement

Parent involvement has important effects on learning performance. The interventions designed
to increase involvement should result in better learning. Not only passively waiting for the e-mail
about student behavior, parent may actively discuss with teacher or other parents using EHS
interface. The on-line behavior will be recorded by EHS. Parent is timely to contact with teacher,
have better discussion with other parent or school, deeper negotiate with school decision making.
Teacher is easier to observe the family expectation and has better relationship with parent.

4.1.4. Reporting periodically

The timely instructions to students are very important. The periodically reports will help stu-
dents in organizing important material, determining what is professional work, obtaining credit
for past experience, and beginning to self-evaluate their work. EHS will provide assessment infor-
mation periodically. Teachers are noticed to pay more attention to the lack-participating parents
and the slow-progressing students. Teachers may refine the teaching strategy and notify the par-
ents with some other effective approach.

4.2. EHS system framework

In Fig. 2, the system framework is divided into two areas: client and server. In the client area
the system contains individual interface to all end users including teachers, parents and students.
In the server area the system is divided into three major components: web server, e-homebook
environment with portfolio assessment system, and MS SQL server 2000. The web server accepts
requests from the end-user and sends the requested message. To completely record studentsÕ act
performed by the web server, it contains a set of ASP programs. The ASP program contains inter-
action agent, instruction agent, information agent, evaluation agent and log agent.

4.2.1. Interaction agent

Interaction agent provides an opinion exchange platform among teachers, students, and par-
ents. Teacher post daily notice, announces special topics, or select specific group to send e-mail.
Students may discuss curriculum or extra curriculum subjects. Parents may discuss class or school
affairs, share oneÕs professional knowledge, or make comments to some policy.

4.2.2. Instruction agent

Fig. 3 shows the architecture of instruction agent. Instruction agent is an epitome of Learning
Management Systems (LMS). LMS provides search service, sequence service, content manage-
ment service, course management service, user profile service, contents providing service, and
H.-m. Chen et al. / Computers & Education 49 (2007) 160–175 167

Fig. 2. System framework of EHS.

Fig. 3. The architecture of instruction agent.

168 H.-m. Chen et al. / Computers & Education 49 (2007) 160–175

content searching service (Chao, Yeh, & Cheng, 2003). Instruction agent contains instructional
files providing learning contents and tools. When the student browses the learning materials,
the intermediate will process the requested chapter online. In the meantime, the log agent auto-
matically record the frequency and time-consuming into the log database.

4.2.3. Evaluation agent

Evaluation agent provides teachers to set up the standard observe and evaluate the learning
performance of their students. On-line and on-class assessment is both retained in EHS. Evalua-
tion agent provides multi-dimension measurement method and helps teachers to effectively figure
up the performance. Although the web logs on the log agent site can record all activities on web
sites, the data analysis will filter out and pick up the useful information, figure out the assessment
grades of the users through the portfolio assessment system. On-line assessment is in charge of the
performance of the usersÕ behavior in instruction agent and on-class assessment is figuring up the
performance grade on school. Eventually, the evaluation are continuing and providing timely
reports.

4.2.4. Information agent

Fig. 4 shows the architecture of information agent. Information agent includes new
announcement, handles in assignments and so on. The ASP program cooperates with SQL ser-
ver to record and process the end-usersÕ action online. Each area in ASP programs will pass
through the log agent to record the accessing information in web logs, for instance, the fre-
quencies and time-spending of login, frequencies and time-spending of reading articles, etc.
Information agent process and given the latest information through the whole users in
EHS. Besides, the evaluation agent will get cooperate with the information agent to provide

Fig. 4. The architecture of information agent.

 H.-m. Chen et al. / Computers & Education 49 (2007) 160–175 169

the assessment information for end-users. When the evaluation agent had accomplished the
final assessment of all students and parents, the information agent will send e-mails containing
assessment grades of the individual student or parent and comparison graphs or charts for the
whole class (see Figs. 5 and 6).

4.2.5. Log agent

The main purpose of portfolio analysis is to observe the student learning behavior and attitude.
The classroom learning attitude is observed by attentive teachers. The online behavior can be re-
corded by log agent automatically. The end-user browser must directly communicate with web
server to access the EHS by requesting the ASP programs. In addition, all acts on EHS are faith-
fully recorded in the web logs. Web logs and instruction logs must initially be reorganized into a
structure that is appropriate for the observation index and analysis. Teachers may not easily
understand the meaning of the access history in the web logs. The initial step for utilizing the
web logs in observation involves inferring the pedagogical meaning of each file accessing entry

90 85
Spending Time (Minute)

80 74 74
70 65
60 60
60 50 52
50 41
40 32
30
20
10
0
Lesson 1 Lesson 2 Lesson 3 Lesson 4 Lesson 5 Lesson 6 Lesson 7 Lesson 8 Lesson 9 Lesson10
Course : English

Fig. 5. Cumulative browsing time for student Cris.

90
85
80
Spending Time (Minute)

74 74
70
65
60 60 60
50 50 52

40 41
30 32

20
10
0
Lesson Lesson Lesson Lesson Lesson Lesson Lesson Lesson Lesson Lesson
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
Course : English

Fig. 6. Cumulative browsing time for student Cris.

170 H.-m. Chen et al. / Computers & Education 49 (2007) 160–175

in the web logs. Therefore, the system provides an interface which can immediately monitor and
give information about the users doings on the on-line for teachers.

4.3. Observation index in learning portfolio

The traditional education portfolio application is focusing attention on studentsÕ initial under-
standing of the process and its purpose, encouraging student ownership and individual expression,
providing some structured aspects to balance the open-ended nature of portfolios, and evaluating
the portfolio process and studentsÕ responses in a classroom environment. The online portfolio
evaluation is different. All activities are automatically recorded by the EHS. The information in-
side the web logs are collected from recording, tracking, and analyzing all of activities on EHS.
But not all the information is necessary. For teachers to realize the studentsÕ status of learning
progress on Internet environment as well as to develop a non-paper evaluation and construct
timely teaching strategies, observation index is organized as a dynamic assessment task, not sim-
ply a static indicator.
In our research, the important learning activities and assessment standard are categorized into
two parts: traditional education environment school and e-learning subsystem. The suggested
observation index of school performance is shown in Table 1.
Each index in class performance is quantitative and weight of each index is the importance as-
signed by teacher according to course objective. The final grade in school performance is an addi-
tive linear model of individual observation index and its corresponding weight. The suggested
observation index of e-learning system is shown in Table 2. The system is measuring not only
the quantitative data, but also recording the qualitative part. ‘‘What the student is doing’’ is as
important as ‘‘how he is doing’’ (Wills, 1995; Cloete, 2001). The after-class learning attitude
can be traced by the system log recording.

Table 1
Suggested observation index of school performance in EHS
Observation index Description
Test Grades of tests
Assignment/Project Grades of assignments
Examination Grades of first, mid, final-term examination
Participation Grades of classroom participation

Table 2
Suggested observation index of e-learning subsystem in EHS
Observation index Description
Logins Frequencies and time span of using learning subsystem
Instruction material Frequencies and time span of reading instruction materials
Discussing area Frequencies of posting articles
Frequencies of replying articles
Chat room Frequencies of login to use the chat room
 H.-m. Chen et al. / Computers & Education 49 (2007) 160–175 171

Each observation index is transformed into quantitative indicator. For example, the ‘‘discuss-
ing area’’ index is measured by the frequencies of posting and replying articles. Teacher may as-
sign the knowledge-related topic to be recorded by system. The system summarizes the valuable
individual posting and replying frequencies and compare with the whole classmates. This assess-
ment may be compared anytime. So we can trace each studentÕs learning attitude. If one is inter-
ested only in special topic, teacher may change teaching strategy and lead his attention to
important topic. Like school assessment, the end-semester online grade is also an additive linear
model of individual observation index and its corresponding weight. Finally, the performance for
each student is combined with both performance evaluations. The system also records parent par-
ticipation automatically. Parent observation index is suggested like ‘‘login’’, ‘‘chat room’’ and
‘‘discussing area’’. The observation index is also transformed into quantitative form and normal-
ized for comparison.

4.4. Assessment method

In this research, we propose an assessment method to evaluate the student learning perfor-
mance and the parent participation act. The assessment methods are listed as follows:

 Student on-line assessment.

 Student on-class assessment.
 Overall integrated assessment.
 Parent on-line assessment.

The grade of school performance is the same as traditional calculation. Following is the grade on
course m for each observation index for specific student:
P
y j;m
Ym ¼ ; j ¼ 1 to t; ð1Þ
t
where Ym is the average score for subject m, yj,m means the jth evaluation score and t de-
notes the number of total evaluation times. Since all the class observation index performance
scores are recoded in this system by teachers, the calculation is very easy without further
processing.
The e-learning subsystem is more complicated since it collects enormous qualitative and quan-
titative data. The database records the frequency and time span for each student on every subject.
For the purpose of easy comparison and readability, all the data have transformed into normalized
form. For example, the e-learning instruction material subsystem records the whole classÕ on-line
frequencies. The on-line frequency for student i on course m such as ‘‘mathematics’’ is normalized
as follows:
Totali;m  Minm
X i;m ¼ : ð2Þ
Maxm  Minm
Totali,m represents the total of on-line frequency for student i. Maxm means the maximum of on-
line frequency for entire students on course m. Minm means the minimum of on-line frequencies
for entire class on course m. Xi,m means the normalized frequency for student i on course m. The
172 H.-m. Chen et al. / Computers & Education 49 (2007) 160–175

on-line observation index including frequency and time span are all normalized. This value should
be between 0 and 1. The higher the normalized value is, the higher the performance score he gets.
For the flexibility of different evaluation standard by different teacher, the ‘‘weighting coeffi-
cients’’, such as Ws, We, ws,a and we,b are introduced here. In combining the student on on-line
and school behavior, ‘‘weighting coefficients’’ on each observation index on school, observation
index on on-line learning, the school and on-line evaluation proportion are considered.
" #
Xh X
k
Si ¼ W s  ðX i;m;s;a  wm;s;a Þ þ W e  ðY i;m;e;b  wm;e;b Þ ; ð3Þ
a¼1 b¼1

where Si is the integrated performance score student i gets. Ws represents the weight for school
performance and denotes the weight for on-line performance. Xi,m,s,a means the normalized score
student i gets on course m for school performance observation
P index a. wm,s,a means the weight on
course m for school performance observation index a. ha¼1 wm;s;a ¼ 1 means the total weights for
all observation index on course m for school performance is 1. Yi,m,e,b means the normalized score
student i gets on course m for on-line performance
P observation index b. wm,e,a means the weight on
course m for on-line observation index b. ka¼1 wm;e;b ¼ 1 means the total weights for all observa-
tion index on course m for on-line is 1.

5. Results and discussions

Here is an example for the portfolio assessment combining school and on-line performance.
From Table 3 we can calculate student CrisÕs final grade is 68.78.
Assumed that other studentsÕ grades are 70, 90, 55, and 51, we propose a quartile method to
classify the level of student performance. The quartile method shows as the following equation
where Rmax means the highest grade and Rmin means the lowest grade in the class:
Rmax þ Rmin
F ¼ . ð4Þ
2
As a result, F, the intermediate value equals to 70.5. Then the studentsÕ grade is divided into
four levels: first level is 80.25 (the average of F and Rmax) above; second level is between 70.5
and 80.25; third level is between 60.75 (the average of F and Rmin) and 70.5; and the fourth level
is 60.75 below. CrisÕs final grade shows that he is in the third level.
Figs. 2 and 3 show the cumulative on-line frequencies and time for Cris. The system will provide
the figures not only for individual student but also for the whole class as shown in Fig. 7. The
qualitative and quantitative statistical data may provide a broader view and make it easier to ana-
lyze studentÕs situation and implement teaching strategy.

Table 3
Example of learning assessment
School performance On-class assessment
Grade 43.25 85.8
Weight 40% 60%
 H.-m. Chen et al. / Computers & Education 49 (2007) 160–175 173

100
Poor Excellent
90
80

70

60
50

40 Fair Good

30

20

10
0
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90

Fig. 7. Performance table for Class A.

30 26
22
Issue Frequencies

25
20
18 18
20
15 14 14
15 12 11
10
8
10

0
Jan Feb Mar Apr May June July Aug Sept Oct Nov Dec
Month

Fig. 8. The issue frequency on bulletin board for parent Daisy.

35

30 30
28 29
27
25 25
Login Frequency

23 24
20
19
17 16
15 14 15

10

0
Jan Feb Mar Apr May June July Aug Sept Oct Nov Dec

Fig. 9. The login frequency of parent Daisy.

174 H.-m. Chen et al. / Computers & Education 49 (2007) 160–175

The system provides studentÕs learning portfolio as well as parentsÕ participation portfolio. Par-
entsÕ on-line frequencies, discussion participation, article posting, etc., are recorded and summa-
rized as shown in Figs. 8 and 9. Teachers may contact with unconcerned parents by systemÕs
notice.

6. Conclusions

Parent, as well as teacher, is an essential segment in student performance. However, the parent
involvement is never formally considered in learning model. To comprehend parent involvement
in the learning environment, we design an EWM and implement a Web-based interactive inter-
face, EHS, to support the parent–teacher–student interaction for elementary education. A qual-
itative assessment method is also addressed in able to overall evaluate studentsÕ learning
performance and parentsÕ participation in traditional and virtual environment. The architecture
and software the system used is sufficiently analyzed in this paper. We also use simulated data
to verify the feasibility of the system. The portfolio analysis help teacher to verify the learning
deficiency and draft the teaching and communication strategy. The parent–teacher–student com-
munication is enhanced since the EHS automatically provide periodical reports and mail to teach-
ers and parents. Responding to the EWM, the learning performance is firmly involved and
directed by both school and family. Furthermore, we are implementing the EWS with some ele-
mentary school in Taiwan in the undergoing research.

Acknowledgment

This work was supported through the National Science Council, R.O.C., Grant No. NSC-93-
2520-S-168-002.

References

Alter, J., Spandel, V., & Culham, R. (1994). Portfolios for assessment and instruction. Northwest Regional Education, 7.
Ayala, G., & Yano, Y. (1998). A collaborative learning environment based on intelligent agents. Expert Systems with
Application, 14, 129–137.
Chan, T. W., Hue, C. W., Chou, C. Y., & Tzeng, Ovid J. L. (2001). Four spaces of network learning models.
International Journal of Computers & Education, 37(2), 141–161.
Chang, L. J., Yang, J. C., Deng, Y. C., & Chan, T. W. (2003). EduXs: multilayer educational services platforms.
Computers & Education, 41, 1–18.
Chao, C. P., Yeh, A., & Cheng, C. P. (2003). Web-based oriented computing framework for SROCM compatible LMS
systems. Proceedings of the Web Instruction System & Content Standardization(April), 7–12.
Chen, C. M., Lee, H. M., & Chen, Y. H. (2005). Personalized e-learning system using item response theory. Computers
& Education, 44, 237–255.
Christenson, S. L., & Conoley, J. C. (Eds.). (1992). Home–school collaboration: Enhancing childrenÕs academic and social
competence. Laurel, MD: National Association of School Psychologists.
Christenson, S. L., Rounds, T., & Gorney, D. (1992). Family factors and student achievement: an avenue to increase
studentsÕ success. School Psychology Quarterly, 7, 178–206.
 H.-m. Chen et al. / Computers & Education 49 (2007) 160–175 175

Cloete, E. (2001). Electronic education system model. Computers and Education, 36(2), 171–182.
Epstein, J. L. (1987). Toward a theory of family–school connections: Teacher practices and parent involvement. In K.
Hurrelmann, F. Kayfnabb, & F. Losel (Eds.), Social interventions: Potential and constraints (pp. 121–136). New
York: De Gruyter.
Epstein, J. L. (1995). School/family/community partnerships: caring for the children we serve. Phi Delta Kappan, 76,
701–712.
Jacobson, W., Sliecher, D., & Burke, M. (1999). Portfolio assessment of intercultural competence. International Journal
of Intercultural Relations, 23(3), 467–492.
Keith, T. Z., Keith, P. B., Quirk, K. J., Sperduto, J., Santillo, S., & Killings, S. (1998). Longitudinal effects of parent
involvement on high school grades: similarities and differences across gender and ethnic groups. Journal of School
Psychology, 36(3), 335–363.
Kicklighter, J. R. (1999). Use of a course portfolio for assessment of teaching and learning. Journal of American Dietic
Association, 99(9), A75.
Kohl, G. O., Lengua, L. J., & McMahon, R. J. (2000). Parent involvement in school conceptualizing multiple
dimensions and their relations with family and demographic risk factors. Journal of School Psychology, 38(6),
501–523, 21.
Krumm, V. (1996). Parent involvement in Austria and Taiwan: results of a comparative study. International Journal of
Educational Research, 25(1), 9–24.
Lee, J., Hong, N. L., & Ling, N. L. (2001). An analysis of studentsÕ preparation for the virtual learning environment.
The Internet and Higher Education, 4(3–4), 231–242.
Lewis, L. C., & Klitzke, C. (1995). Uses of a student portfolio in a supervised practice program. Journal of the American
Dietetic Association, A70.
Panitz, B. (1996). The student portfolio: a powerful assessment tool. PRISM, 24–29.
Passerini, K., & Granger, M. J. (2000). A developmental model for distance learning using the Internet. Computers &
Education, 34, 1–15.
Shin, D., Yoon, E. S., Lee, K. Y., & Lee, E. S. (2002). A web-based, interactive virtual laboratory system for unit
operations and process systems engineering education: Issues, design and implementation. Computers & Chemical
Engineering, 26, 319–330.
Shumow, L. (1998). Promoting parental attunement to childrenÕs mathematical reasoning through parent education.
Journal of Applied Developmental Psychology, 19(1), 109–127.
Voorhees, R. A. (2001). Competency-based learning models: a necessary future. New Directions for Institutional
Research(110), 5–13, Summer.
Wade, R. C., & Yarbrough, D. B. (1996). Portfolios: a tool for reflective thinking in teacher education? Teaching and
Teacher Education, 12(1), 63–79.
Wall, B. C., & Peltier, R. F. (1996). ‘‘Going Public’’ with electronic portfolios: audience community, and the terms of
student ownership. Computer and Composition, 13(2), 207–217.
Wills, W. (1995). Instructional development for distance education. In Distance education at a glance. Engineering
Outreach at University of Idaho, October. Available from: http://www.uniaho.edu/evo/dist.html.