 |
 |
Comments and observations from Dave Croot (University of Plymouth). Note: These are purely personal observations and do not represent the Institutional view of the University of Plymouth. Overall : well done Simon for kicking this off, and we must develop this to it's fullest extent. I have stuck with Simon's original headings, but there are others into which we might like to expand. Dave ________________________________ In order to decide how e-portfolio tools fit in education, the first issue to resolve is whether the education is structured or planned in any way. To many people in educational institutions this may sound like an odd question, because their assumption may be that education is a planned activity. But there is the alternative, broader and looser view of education in which learners engage with experiences without planning beforehand what educational objectives there might be, and learn whatever they happen to learn. Typically, different people in the same situation are likely to learn different things when left to their own devices. Add here the concept of : lifelong learning; dipping in and out of formal educational settings; links between education/learning and appraisal in working settings. Need to address here the conceptual and real issues of access; security; central or dispersed data storage. ==Unstructured education== If education is not structured or planned, the role of e-portfolio tools is at once simpler but more difficult to define. Portfolio tools can in any case help learners record what has happened, reflect on it in a more or less structured way, and keep the materials in an easily accessed place, helpfully categorised, so that the information can be used later for whatever purpose emerges. Sound. ==Structured education== If, as is normal in educational institutions, the education is organised, we can imagine a simple model of an idealised process of constructing, delivering and assessing a course, in which we can set the possible roles for e-portfolio tools. Mmm. One of the key issues still to be thrashed out in HE is the place of ePortfolios within the defined learning outcomes models (as below). Many will argue for semi-detached ePortfolios, thus avoiding the need to enter into protracted discussions about proper standardisation of accreditation across programmes, institutions and nations. In my own situation we are starting with post-graduate learning settings in which we can avoid these problems, and see how things progress. ===Learning objectives=== Learning objectives (or intended learning outcomes - no distinction is intended here) are statements that describe what a learner will be able to do as a result of learning. This is a normal place to start when designing a course. A special case for e-portfolios would be if the objectives included the ablity to use e-portfolio tools, or involved the use of e-portfolio tools, or more generally involved attitudes related to portfolio use: for instance, related to the ability to record experiences, reflect on them, and use the results of reflection in presentations to others. Although I have every sympathy with this in principle, it will in the end boil down to assesment of learning outcomes. Most academics will feel very uncomfortable about the responsibility for assessing the "value" of an e-portfolio. We will have to make some critical decisions about what exactly is to be assessed/evaluated. I am not convinced that we are looking at the right outcomes set. The assessment of "attitude" as opposed to competency is thorny to say the least! Other e-portfolio-related objective would be learners gaining the ability to document and evidence personal abilities; and the ability to present themselves more generally on paper and through electronic media. Much easier to provide levels of competence and standardise outcomes. Maybe this is achievement at level 1/2 on a scale of outcomes from 1-5 ===Learning processes=== Clearly it is possible to allow learners themselves to decide how to meet learning objectives, but many courses design the processes to a greater or lesser extent, or at least envisage how the learning process might take place. If the processes are designed, they may involve pre-selected learning materials and e-learning tools. Some of these tools may be e-portfolio tools, or be linked with portfolio tools. Processes, and thus tools, depend greatly on the kinds of learning objectives selected. But whatever processes and tools are used, e-portfolio related tools can offer storage and recall of the kind of information useful in formative assessment. Indeed, any formative assessment processes could well be based around tools that include e-portfolio functionality. You rightly distinguish between process and outcomes. I am personally concerned that any learner develops the correct attitudes and can initially follow a set of reasonably well defined processes, using a minimum toolset, the progress on to individualise their processes and select tools from a wider range that suits thier purposes. This does not need to be set within a learning outcomes driven model. The development of attitudes and ability to use tools need not necessarily be embedded in a learning outcomes model if we believe that there is intrinsic value in the aquiring attitudes and putting them into practice using particular processes. ===Assessment=== Alongside the learning objectives, one has to decide how the objectives are to be assessed summatively. Assessment may involve portfolios of work, or a system which helps to administer the collection, presentation, and assessment of work. This is a significant area in its own right, which can be dealt with separately, and for which there exist several well-established tools, particularly in the area of vocational education and NVQs. Some of these tools include e-portfolio in their name, and it is possible for a summative assessment management tool not to facilitate any reflection, or other functionality frequently associated with portfolio tools. Do we believe in aquisition of attitudes to self learning? Do we always need extrinsic motivation (eg assessment) to drive motivation? Recent survey work we have undertaken amongst staff at Plymouth shows clear polarisation of attitudes here! ==Assessing available tools== A rational approach to portfolio use in education design might proceed by assessing the available tools for any of the purposes outlined above. There are purpose-built e-portfolio tools of various kinds, but there are also many tools which, if they are generally available to the learners in question, can be used to support portfolio-related processes. Tools to help with the learning processes, without provision for reflection, or recording for purposes beyond the course itself, may best not be seen as e-portfolio tools, but rather as part of a wider group of e-learning tools. There is a real danger of any e-learning tool being labelled an e-portfolio tool indiscriminately. To maintain meaning, this tendency has to be resisted. Absolutely! ==Use existing or build new== Having assessed available tools, the point of decision comes between using existing tools, which may not be perfectly matched to the situation; adapting existing tools for the required purposes; or building new ones, with the implications in terms of resources, and in particular, time. This is exactly what I am grappling with at the moment. We are just about to introduce a new IT infrastructure model to replace Outlook. In out setting, each programme uses their own ePortfolio model and structure, many of which are underpinned by Outlook folders (a varied, non-systematic, individualised model that appears to work!). Do we migrate to Sharepoint, or look at introducing a new institution-wide, specifically tailored ePortfolio system? My guess is that we will migrate to Sharepoint in order to allow staff and students to migrate fairly seamlessly, and without too much burden on central IT services.