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.

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.

Greenberg, G. (2004) ‘The digital convergence: extending the portfolio model’

Greenberg, G. (2004) ‘The digital convergence: extending the portfolio model’ [online], Educause Review, vol. 39, no. 4 (July/August), pp. 28–36. Available from: http://net.educause.edu/ir/library/pdf/ERM0441.pdf (accessed 8 September 2008)

Greenberg refers to three distinct portfolio types. These may be digital or non-digital in nature. The showcase portfolio, where “organization occurs after the work has been created.” is symptomatic of the traditional artists portfolio, typically intended for presenting finished artefacts to an employer or client, although also to peers or a wider audience (it could be argued that an exhibition of work is a portfolio).

With a structured portfolio, “a predefined organization exists for work that is yet to be created.” Interestingly, this type of portfolio has a fundamentally different purpose to the showcase variety in that it aims to democratize content by organizing it in a uniform and predeterminate way, thus ‘leveling the playing-field’. Depending on the audience, this may be useful when wishing to compare the skillsets of applicants for a course, for example, or when ascertaining whether the owner has the necessary aptitude to proceed in some other context.

Finally, the learning portfolio is where “organization of work evolves as it is created.” This statement summarizes the capacity for reflection, critical appraisal and development within a recorded format and is essentially the concept of PDP that we are familiar with in education. Greenberg relates this to an art and design context, suggesting that in its most traditional form this portfolio type is comparable to an artist’s sketchbook. The key strength of this portfolio is that “work evolves over time as tasks are identified, worked on, and completed in response to the author’s changing interests, requirements, and understanding.”

Having identified these three core portfolio principles, the author goes on to advocate the opportunities that an e-portfolio presents in terms of integrated assessment and ongoing peer connections through both educational and professional career.

Greenberg is positive about the “digital convergence of text, graphics, sound and video” and the engaging opportunties this presents to stakeholders. However, I have several concerns about this: 1) That in art and design contexts the medium for artefact representation (i.e. for assessment not just presentation) is often intrinsic to its affect on the audience. 2) The diverse range of skills required to effectively produce multimedia content. 3) That an e-portfolio by its nature is structured, and therefore the scope to produce the personalized content necessary in art and design as suggested in the showcase portfolio is difficult to achieve.