Readings on reflection…

Johnson, G. and DiBiase, D. (2004) ‘Keeping the horse before the cart: Penn State’s e-portfolio initiative’, Educause vol. 27, no. 4. Available from: http://www.educause.edu/apps/eq/eqm04/eqm0443.asp (accessed 2 October 2008)

Smith, M. (1996) ‘Reflection: what constitutes reflection – and what significance does it have for educators? The contributions of Dewey, Schön, and Boud et al. assessed’ [online], The Encyclopaedia of Informal Education. Available from: http://www.infed.org/biblio/b-reflect.htm (accessed 2 October 2008)

Smith, M. (2001) ‘David A. Kolb on experiential learning’ [online], The Encyclopaedia of Informal Education. Available from: http://www.infed.org/biblio/b-explrn.htm (accessed 1 October 2008)

2.3 Reflection and learning

The course guide says that H808 aims to support our development in “your capacity to assess and transform your e-learning context, through reflection on your practice.” (Open University, 2008) This indicates that the course places an emphasis on the ’self’ and applying knowledge developed during the course activities to the learner’s own context, thus personalizing their learning experience.

There are two reasons why I would want to reflect on this course. One is that I would want to reflect on my actual participation on it – my involvement with the learning activities, my interactions with other students, how I feel I’m coping, that sort of thing. The other is to reflect on what I am learning in context with my regular professional practice.

Moon (2005) states, “The issue of assessment of reflection needs careful thought. The most important decision is whether or not to assess it… and how you will ensure students engage.” That the course embeds reflection of contextualizing learning activities serves to personalize it and emphasizes ownership. Moon also comments on how reflection enables learners to achieve ownership over knowledge, and the parallels to the capacity of an e-portfolio to deliver ownership of content cements the relationship between the two. She goes on to say, “it is important that [reflection] is signalled possibly in the aim, but particularly in the learning outcomes for the module” (Moon, 2001)

Interestingly, as I write this I have become aware of the reasons why I may reflect, supporting the notion that “ability in reflection often implies ability in metacognition”. (Moon, 2005) The feature of ‘second-order reflection’ is explained in Moon (2001) and has a commonsensical relationship with underpinning theory (Kolb, 1984), where a well-established tradition of reflection is part of professional teaching practice, for example.

So, some key points:
• Reflection can be used to think about a concept, challenge or subject more thoroughly, and therefore learn more about it. (Taking a step back)
• In doing so, it becomes a personal experience. New knowledge is developed and is made unique by the individual experiences brought to existing knowledge.
• Reflection engenders metacognition.
• The underpinning theory of reflection and learning are well-established in existing professional practice.

–
Moon, J. (2001) ‘PDP working paper 4: reflection in higher education learning’ [online], The Higher Education Academy. Available from: http://www.heacademy.ac.uk/assets/York/documents/resources/resourcedatabase/id72_Reflection_in_Higher_Education_Learning.rtf (accessed 30 September 2008)

Moon, J. (2005) ‘Guide for busy academics no. 4: learning through reflection’ [online], The Higher Education Academy. Available from: http://www.heacademy.ac.uk/resources/detail/id69_guide_for_busy_academics_no4_moon (accessed 30 September 2008)

Open University (2008) ‘The e-learning professional, H808 course guide 2008′, Institute of Educational Technology: Postgraduate Available online from the H808 course website (Accessed 1 October 2008)

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.

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.

Strivens, J. (2007) A Survey of E-Portfolio Practice in UK Higher Education

Strivens, J. (2007) A Survey of E-Portfolio Practice in UK Higher Education, [online] The Higher Education Academy Available from: http://www.recordingachievement.org/downloads/KD-HEAe-portfoliosurvey.pdf (accessed 24 September 2008)

The author acknowledges the rapidly changing landscape of e-portfolios, but discerns distinguishable trends from the research, including:
- The majority of HEIs using an electronic tool to support PDP
- Half of HEIs use an e-portfolio tool
- Significantly, the main purposes for e-portfolios were for supporting development and implementing PDP (organisational), whereas owners of an e-portfolio said that presentation was most important (user)
- Interoperability (cross-institution) was not a high priority, rather organisations wanting to integrate their own systems

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.