Hi all,

Do we also need to include in the functionality that the subject of the
ePortfolio is able to receive comments/feedback, whether through
selective presentation, or as required from a supervisor or assessor? 

This is a very interesting discussion. I have visited several Colleges
recently, and the question ' what do you mean by ePortfolio?' has come
up again and again, so general agreement on such a model would certainly
help in evaluating what processes are currently in use. Often there is
'portfollio type' activity occuring, but it's not explicitly
acknowledged as such.
Also, with regards to Facebook etc. These types of services could be
used to create a presentation for an audience for comment... 
I guess the challenge is finding a core of functionality, and mapping
ways in which software that may provide the other bits can plug into
this.

Regards,
Kirstie

---------------------------
Kirstie Coolin
Application Developer E-Portfolios
Learning Team
Information Systems
University of Nottingham
0115 84 66785
x 66785

-----Original Message-----
From: e-portfolio practitioners and developers
[mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Simon Grant
Sent: 13 July 2007 07:03
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: A model relating e-portfolios to software?

I'd like to feed several points from this discussion into the idea of a
domain model for e-portfolios within education.

But firstly, how good it is to see people in our community of practice
(just about) agreeing on a definition of what an "e-portfolio" should
mean!  Let me pick this up first...

"Shane Sutherland" Mon, 9 July, 2007 5:36 pm
  So, I think I'm inclined to stick with my original offering
  "An eportfolio is a purposeful aggregation of digital items
  - ideas, evidence, reflections, feedback, data etc - which
  'present' a selected audience with information about
  the subject of that eportfolio". For me the 'purposeful'
  indicates intent - more often than not explicit intent.

"Andy Powell" Mon, 9 July, 2007 6:09 pm
  Tweaking yours slightly gives:
    "An e-portfolio is a purposeful aggregation of digital items
    which 'presents' a selected audience with evidence of
    a person's learning and/or ability."
  I had the slightly shorter:
    "An e-portfolio is a digital collection of creative work,
    designed to show evidence of learning and/or ability."

(Though there was then some doubt about the word "creative".)

"Pete Johnston" Mon, 9 July, 2007 5:30 pm then pointed out that we could
be talking about a collection of works with or without associated
explanation or commentary.
Without wanting to curtail discussion, I think most of us would prefer
the one *with* the associated explanations. This makes the nature of the
e-portfolio clearer as being directed at a particular audience for a
particular purpose. But, as Terri (and possibly others) have pointed
out, if we want to take account of current practice with work-based
learners, we should allow for the possibility that there may be no such
added explanations or text of any kind. Both should be allowed.

In any case, it looks like we have mutual understanding here, and there
seems to me no need to commit to just one particular form of words about
what "e-portfolio" means.

This then allows me to return to the larger exercise from which this
discussion branched: the question of a kind of domain model for the role
of e-portfolio software especially in the context of education.

I'd like to reflect on these pieces:

"Mark Johnson" Mon, 9 July, 2007 3:45 pm
  I wonder if there's still a risk of talking about artefacts
  though - managed personal collection/presentation or whatever...
  It might be useful to think of the artefacts in terms of
  the actions that are performed to produce them
  and the actions that are performed with them.

"Terri Kinnison" Mon, 9 July, 2007 5:22 pm
  Think the Becta group is inclined toward defining a set of
  services that support the process of producing an 'eportfolio'.
  These services could then be supported by one or more tools.
  This would include 'repository' which seems to be what part
  of this is about?

and ask, does this relate to the potential functionality of software
which is designed, partly at least, with the ideas of e-portfolios in
mind, in the sense that we roughly agree?

In this way, I'm hoping that we can avoid the question (which would be
precariously unproductive in my view) of what counts as worthwhile
e-portfolio related software.
(I use the term "software" in an attempt to include both stand-alone
systems, web services, and other such things.)

So I was glad, when Terri raised the question "Terri Kinnison" Mon, 9
July, 2007 5:22 pm
  Is MySpace etc an 'eportfolio'? Part of an 'eportfolio'?
Andy replied:
"Andy Powell" Mon, 9 July, 2007 5:36 pm
  MySpace (etc.) is a service so it can't be an e-portfolio
  (at least not according to the definitions just discussed).

But I think I can relate these issues and questions together, hopefully
in a helpful way.  Can we look at the functionality of any software, in
relation to the e-portfolio field, and ask questions such as these,
beginning with "does this software"
* store or help with the management of the kind of
  information that goes into e-portfolios?
* help learners to choose and put together information
  and evidence, as is needed for example in progression?
* help the user recognise what artefacts are evidence of,
  and to record those connections?
* enable collections (artefacts, evidence) to be viewed?
* help with presentation and permissions, to allow the
  e-portfolios to be seen by the appropriate people?
* help facilitate assessment of portfolios?
* help to manage learning experiences that lead to
  learners improving their knowledge or skills?
* help people reflect on experiences and achievements?
* help people set goals and do action planning?

I'd be very interested in others adding to, filling in and improving on
this list. It's not complete, and certainly not yet in the best and most
comprehensible form, but I wonder if you get where I am coming from? If
we can agree on some version of these questions, then we can agree that
all of these are related in some way to e-portfolio processes.
Instead of trying to argue about what constitutes proper e-portfolio
software, we can instead evaluate software in terms of which parts of
this functionality they provide; we can discuss which of these processes
play a part in various educational processes; and we can discuss which
of them could or should (in any particular situation) be undertaken with
computer-based systems and tools.
Clearly, we need to share these discussions with people from outside the
e-portfolio camp, in the wider worlds of e-learning, e-admin, and
e-business at least.

This brings me on to considerations like these...

"Alan Paull" Tue, 10 July, 2007 1:12 pm
  I don't believe there is a good argument for ePortfolios
  in transition as an administrative function, in fact
  rather the opposite, I fear. I don't think there is yet
  general acceptance that transition to HE is more than an
  administrative process; for example if a university department
  with a recruiting course sets a relatively low points or grades
  offer and makes automatic offers on that basis, I would contend
  that it is encouraging an attitude towards admissions as an
  administrative or filtering process, rather than a learning
  experience.

"Terri Kinnison" Tue, 10 July, 2007 1:40 pm
  Interesting Alan; I was musing last night about how crucial
  the role of *some form* of assessment (including peer, self,
  formative etc.) is, to help define what 'eportfolio' is.
  This would help us differentiate general 'purposes'(like MySpace?)
  from 'learning/education/accreditation' purposes and also to see
  the enhancement that 'eportfolio' brings to simple data transfer?
  Is the word 'evidence' in the definitions sufficient to include
  the concept of assessment?

These certainly look like interesting questions: what I'm suggesting
would help is a basis of shared understanding of how we talk about the
functionality so that we can have these discussions without being
dragged back into misunderstandings about what the basic concepts mean.

Thanks

Simon

--
This message has been scanned for viruses and dangerous content by
MailScanner, and is believed to be clean.

This message has been checked for viruses but the contents of an attachment
may still contain software viruses, which could damage your computer system:
you are advised to perform your own checks. Email communications with the
University of Nottingham may be monitored as permitted by UK legislation.