Love, D., McKean, G. and Gathercoal, P. (2004) ‘Portfolios to webfolios and beyond: levels of maturation’

Love, D., McKean, G. and Gathercoal, P. (2004) ‘Portfolios to webfolios and beyond: levels of maturation’ [online], Educause Quarterly, vol. 27, no. 2. Available from: http://www.educause.edu/apps/eq/eqm04/eqm0423.asp (accessed 24 September 2008)

Love et al indicate that webfolios have the potential to be one of the most significant educational tools ever, but they do recognise that the tool alone requires a human factor to operate effectively. The reflect that this impact will only be attained if “implemented by capable professional educators”.

It is important to note that the authors state that webfolios as having more flexible attributes to e-portfolios and paper portfolios providing a means to cross-reference multiple portfolio content to assess equitability. “Acknowledgment of difference in the capabilities of alternative portfolio media is critical.” Note However, for some portfolio types, a move away from this democratisation is a priority.

A conceptual framework is presented, with five levels of portfolio use proposed by the authors: 1) Scrapbook; 2) CV; 3) Curriculum collaboration; 4) Menoring leading to mastery; & 5) Authentic evidence for assessment. These are described as levels of ‘maturation’, reflecting the challenge of ‘inverted value’ described by Acker (2005). However, outlining the role of each level may go some way to mitigate this barrier to engagement.

Acker, S. (2005) ‘Overcoming obstacles to authentic e-portfolio assessment’

Acker, S. (2005) ‘Overcoming obstacles to authentic e-portfolio assessment’ [online], Campus Technology. Available from: http://www.campus-technology.com/news_article.asp?id=10788&typeid=155 (accessed 25 September 2008)

Acker outlines the idea that there are 3Rs to which an e-portfolio can successfully contribute: representation, reflection and revision. The nature of a portfolio is such that representation is intrinsic, and I am beginning to think that reflection is actually the key driver to successful implementation of e-portfolios. In addition, easily editable digital content provides means for frequent revision.

The author also refers to three barriers to institutional uptake: ownership and privacy (IPR), workload issues and what is described as “the ‘inverted value’ of e-portfolios for students.” (That perceived benefits to portfolio use are greater toward end of career) The challenge of workload returns to the need to apply consistent assessment criteria. But perhaps most significantly Acker recognises that “Most students are outcome, rather than process, oriented. They want to graduate, rather than track their academic growth…” Highlighting these challenges, the author reslects that they be tackled at the earliest stage of impliementation, indicating a need for clearly defined protocols for use.

Stefani, L. (2005) ‘PDP/CPD and e-portfolios: rising to the challenge of modelling good practice’

Stefani, L. (2005) ‘PDP/CPD and e-portfolios: rising to the challenge of modelling good practice’ [online], Association for Learning Technology Available from: www.alt.ac.uk/docs/lorraine_stefani_paper.doc (accessed 24 September 2008

Stefani comments on the correlation between CPD and PDP and the benefit to embedding CPD into practice as it has been found that embedding PDP enhances the learner experience, quality of learning, efficiency gains, etc. She also reports on these factors being tied into a motivational driver that, for PDP, usually takes the form of assessment.

Stefani clarifies the portfolio type: “In most instances of e-folios for students, the rational [sic] behind the folio is to support and promote ‘reflective learning’.” (p.4) i.e. a reflective or learning portfolio. The Stanford University Learning Laboratory study exemplifies the functions of the portfolio tool as being flexible, organizable, supporting reflection and private as well as being able to house multimedia content. The study at University of Strathclyde presents a similar list but are presented with the learner at the centre – “to support students in reflecting on attainment, attitudes and progress…” However, in neither instance are examples of actual use reported.

Stefani comments on one of the key benefits to using an e-portfolio for teaching staff as being the abilitly to create a ‘point-in-time’ portfolio. The ability to rapidly generate a snapshot of activity for a variety of audiences, and maintain control over that content, is a powerful reward for users.

Batson, T. (2002) The electronic portfolio boom: what’s it all about?

Batson, T. (2002) ‘The electronic portfolio boom: what’s it all about?’ [online], Campus Technology. Available from: http://www.campustechnology.com/articles/39299_1/ (accessed 24 September 2008)

Batson takes a pragmatic view of e-portfolios and the implications of their utilisation in organisations. The challenges raised include those mentioned by other authors (Jafari, 2004) such as sustainability issues for adopting organisations, as well as those of interoperability standards, storage, privacy and access. However, many of these problems have been tackled by current e-portfolio platforms. Another question posed was “how do we alter the curriculum to integrate portfolios?” Batson expands on this challenge stating that the e-portfolio is “not a simple add-on to existing courses; if it is, students may not see the value.”

Some of the key features of a portfolio differ slightly from other perspectives in that Batson includes the word searchable in addition to the reccurrent attributes of transportable and organized. He also highlights the potential of an e-portfolio to an administrative stakeholder group for aggregation of multiple user’s work, for example.

Jafari, A. (2004) ‘The “sticky” e-portfolio system’

Jafari, A. (2004) ‘The “sticky” e-portfolio system: tackling challenges and identifying attributes’ [online], Educause Review, vol. 39, no. 4 (July/August), pp. 38–49. Available from: http://www.educause.edu/ir/library/pdf/erm0442.pdf (accessed 15 September 2008)

Jafari’s article has a strong HE focus in which he refers to the conept of a “sticky” e-portfolio, one which “works and that is adopted by its users.” A concise definiton of an e-portfolio is suggested as “a personal, lifelong content-management system for collecting, reflecting on, selecting, and presenting learning outcomes and other professional accomplishments.” The author goes on to describe perceived uses of an e-portfolio from the perspectives of various stakeholders encompassing portfolios for assessment, career placement, program accreditation and report compiling. (Interestingly, some of these do not have a user focus which is surprising given that the development of an e-portfolio implies personal ownership.)

In order to mitigate confusion, Jafari outlines some of the emergent e-portfolio ‘labels’ that afford particular purposes. Student learning portfolio, career portfolio, institutional portfolio, department portfolio, faculty portfolio, student portfolio, lifelong portfolio and course portfolios are mentioned (in my own research I have encountered process portfolios and representational portfolios also). This does raise a tension between the use of portfolios across educational and career progression (transportability), however Jafari explains that it is through standarisation of platforms that this can be solved.

[Note Work is currently being undertaken by the JISC CETIS group for development of e-portfolio interoperability standards]

One of the key features of the article is that Jafari outlines what he sees as being the fundamental constituents of a successful e-portfolio. (Easy to use; Advanced features; Lifelong support; Standards & transportability; Robust intgrated technology architecture; Sustainable business plan) Some of these dimensions I agree with as being important, however I feel that since the article was written, that there are now a substantial number of existing platforms that could be deemed to be ‘robust’. (Mehara, PebblePad, OSPI, Drupal, Moodle etc) – software development need not take place to the extent suggested as open source platforms are already available.

One attribute that is missing is that of student ownership. It is a less tangible concept, but there needs to be a balance struck between the user’s ownership of the tool and their content versus its function. E.g. A learner using an e-portfolio specifically for assessment may perceive the use of the tool as being of benefit to the institution, not the learner.