The ‘Cloud’ Dilemma

Quoting from their post:

Ahead of their province wide conference on Privacy and Cloud-Based Educational Technology happening on April 4th, BCcampus has released a background white paper on Privacy and Cloud-Based Educational Technology in British Columbia (PDF).

This is potentially a very interesting debate on issues arising all around the world - and needs to be followed by anyone interested in ePortfolios.

Yet again for me it raises the issue of 'siloed thinking'. Yes, HE may have a majority of bright autonomous and responsible students who do not need the additional burdens of 'Privacy'. However, HE must remember that they are only a small fraction of the total pupulation of the universe! I would hate to think that HE, as the researchers and publishers of received wisdom, should presume to advise the whole planet how the rest of the world should behave.

There are several groups of learners such as the vast majority of younger children, the less able, the less-than responsible, the elderly etc who need varying levels of privacy which may be adjusted as their IT maturity develops.

So, yes, I say. Good luck with the debate and I hope that amicable solutions may be found for those institutions that can manage a more flexible working environment.

A Professional ePortfolio

I recently came across the eFolio of Eric Forsyth, Ph.D. - which I soon realised is an example of all that I would expect from a mature educator. Too often we see at conferences incomplete examples of students' attempts at an ePortfolio, of Pilots and sample pages, but rarely something which could dignify professional status.

In particular I like the simple layout and menu system of eFolio which allows different audiences to target immediately on the features that concern them. For those professionals (of whatever age) that have five minutes to spare, I would suggest that you browse Eric Forsyth's eFolio and then reflect on how you and your colleagues could better represent themselves through an eFolio - it is a cathartic experience!

There are so many areas of experience or expertise which, on reflection, we forget to mention. A personal eFolio is just the place to gather all one's personal and professional strengths into one place. eFolio can be added to or edited at any time or, as I have said elsewhere, can be re-formatted for different audiences. eFolio just keeps on growing with the owner.

BUT, if you as a professional could better represent yourself through such an ePortfolio, how much more your students? It seems obvious to me that the safe collaborative environment that eFolio provides is the perfect antidote to a less than constructive FaceBook or MySpace mania.

e-Safety and eFolio

Mainstream schools in particular have a duty of care towards minors. To this end, advice, clear teaching and Acceptable Use Contracts are not always sufficient. In a previous life-form it was my responsibility to ensure an e-safe working environment which included all of the above. However, it was, for the children, the fear of being found out, with date-stamped hard-copy, that really won through.

This is now a feature of our eFolio system that any suspect child or reported incident can easily be checked out. Again, regular alphabetic or random trawls can also ensure that reasonable on-line behaviour is occurring.

I do not think that where an e-safe system with published rules and sanctions is in place there should be any problem. After all, the institution's system is there for work and, like any exercise book, the ePortfolio, although deemed to be owned by the student, is still open to view by any teacher, parents and mentors or even the Headteacher or a Schools' Inspector!

Increasingly, students of any age can use their own systems for collaboration or investigation and can reserve any 'non-school' activities for systems external to the institution. So much so that some children have objected to their school's use of FaceBook as an intrusion upon their private lives.

Second Generation ePortfolios?

For some time now I have been getting increasingly frustrated by the large number of mainly HE institutions who are continuing to promulgate e-Portfolio theory and practice which is increasingly looking some ten years out of date. I have therefore coined the hardly original acronym of 2G eP, pleading for a second generation approach to e-Portfolios, starting afresh from first principles rather than basing ideas on outmoded thinking.

Despite all the intelligence, wisdom and experience of our noble institutions it would appear that educationists are still saying, 'Here is a tool, what can we do with it?' rather than teachers saying to the developers, 'This is what we want to do, get on and give us what we want.' Quite frankly, eFolio can provide all the facilities that an e-Portfolio should deliver but, for now, let's just explore what we do really require.

Part 2

Perhaps the most immediate requirement is for some clarity. There is presently far too much confusion about the separate functions of a VLE and an e-Portfolio. Course management, and information about assessment criteria are surely the responsibility of the institution. Where helpful to the student one might accept that a copy of assessment criteria could be held within the e-Portfolio but with a good VLE that is hardly necessary. Otherwise, the e-Portfolio should be seen as learner-owned, separate to the VLE and the implications of this need to be fully explored.

The argument has been made that the e-Portfolio is inevitably institutionally based as it is designed to meet the needs of a particular course and even a function within that course. This again is 'tool thinking' rather than 'user-thinking' or 'meeting the variety of needs of each individual'. I raise these issues in my document, first published some two years ago: 'Who's hijacking our e-Portfolios?' To sum up a seven-page article in one sentence: e-Portfolio thinking should not be defined by conventional capabilities but by modern teaching and learning theory. In this regard, a better understanding of collaboration, of peer review and the general benefits of web2.0 will begin to influence the way staff manage formative assessments and the general monitoring of student progress.

Another challenge to take-up across all academic stages is that of the FE institutions. If HE can be seen as having a silo-mentality when it comes to e-Portfolios then FE must be considered as doubly disruptive. My paper, 'A Bridge too Far?' considers the whole situation in 6th-forms and FE colleges. It has been argued that FE has a higher percentage of older teachers and lecturers – this may be marginally true but is still no excuse for the serious lack of CPD supported in FE.

The beauty of eFolio is that different views can be presented concurrently to different audiences - and thus obviating the necessity to model one's e-Portfolio according to the needs of a particular course.

The issues of transition or portability appear to be incapable of meeting any satisfactory conclusion and thus the student is tempted to give up and accept that the e-Portfolio is owned by an institution. This inevitably means that as the learner moves on to another institution yet another different e-Portfolio tool may be required with repeated uploading of artefacts. The owner is therefore tempted not to invest any additional time or effort beyond the minimum required. Perhaps one of my main arguments about the ownership of eFolio is the very fact that through the provision of templates and the facility to change 'skins' and fonts etc not only the younger learner but all learners can create an environment that expresses 'This is ME' – that the learner is proud of and wishes to retain.

If HE has troubles concerning vision, if FE has troubles relating to staff training then Mainstream Education suffers from both of these and more. As much as teachers may expect autonomy within the classroom there is still a need for central advice and direction. For the last four years BECTA has been miserably silent on the issue of e-Portfolios and has utterly failed to provide the leadership and inspiration required for a national initiative. At the same time there is a growing demand from the 'Is it free?' brigade who seem to be unaware of the failure of basic DIY e-Portfolios to meet the strict requirements of e-safe management that schools are required to maintain. It is therefore time for some serious 2G thinking.

I can do no better than to refer back to my original criteria, my 'Ten Prime Directives'. But perhaps I can address these in a different order.

'Cosmeticisation' – an ugly word but essential. Users of any age, from the youngest to the oldest, from the most able to the least able all should be able to modify the templates, style, fonts and images which make up their own chosen self-representation. Note that there is a difference between this and 'personalisation' which, for me, suggests the functionality of the software to recognise one's personal learning styles and preferred software, including such t hings as diagnostic and predictive tools.

Lifelong Learning: can only really be an option if the one e-Portfolio can use the above options to 'transmogrify' or change according to one's maturity, culture, social perspective, course of study or even one's favourite football team or current pop-group. It should be capable of changing the organisation and naming of pages and the addition, editing or removal of artefacts.

'Lifewide' has two distinct meanings. It can refer to the range of users, ie the one tool should be capable of being used by a number of different abilities within one class or group. However, it more significantly refers to the fact that any one person has a number of different personas, any one of which the learner may wish to present to a specific audience. For example, I may wish to represent myself to one group as a competent technician, to another as an HR manager and yet to a third as an environmentalist wishing to do work for a charitable organisation.

Portability is an essential function if the e-Portfolio is to have any credibility as a lifelong tool. However, most e-Portfolio solutions are institutionally based and repeatedly I have heard tales of frustration that the work a student has done in college on their e-Portfolio cannot be taken with them to their next institution or place of employment. This has often led to older students doing as little as necessary or responding with exclamations such as 'Why should I bother?' However, portability is an essential feature of 'transition' and, from my own experience, can include many movements from one school to another and on to yet another.

41 Benefits of an e-Portfolio?

The recent post by Karen Barnstable is an excellent collection of benefits that is hard to improve upon. However, all readers from around the world should read her post and preferably comment back to me or Karen or both!

She clearly identifies three separate areas of benefit: the Student, the teacher and the institution. However, whilst writing this, I realised that she missed out another area possibly the most important, particularly for younger learners, that of the parent.

What about the ‘forgotten armies’ ?

Students at school or college may be a considerable group of learners, but in terms of numbers perhaps they become the minority and the very cause of the problem of the 'silo of academic thinking' in terms of e-Portfolios that I am desperately trying to overcome.

Starting with some pointers from a recent conference, I present a list of those who are presently missing out from the sort of inclusion and support an e-Portfolio can provide – our ‘forgotten armies’:

1. Adults aged 55+ - an increasingly larger group of people who do not want to be excluded from the world even if their mobility or communication skills are reduced.

2. People in rural areas – what with the increasing costs of transportation, the reduction in public services including Post Offices and shops, all are increasing the isolation of communities.

3. People in areas of multiple deprivation – again, people who are self-conscious are less likely to want to communicate with others or lift themselves out of their predicaments.

4. C2DEs (ie lower potential employability) – generally not e-confident, often school dropouts or neets and not aware of how to go about self improvement.

5. The disabled and those with learning difficulties – digital technologies are not always suitable and very often good resources are hard to find.

6. The unemployed and low-income households – not always lacking in digital technologies but often not aware of their full potential eg used for job-seeking or on-line learning.

7. People affected by mental ill-health – the need to communicate, instantly, but without the challenges of f2f meetings needs to be addressed.

8. Homeless/vulnerably housed adults – in an unsecure world the ability to log on in a library, internet cafe or job-centre can provide an excellent base from which to communicate with others.

9. Itinerant workers and services personnel – as seen in recent news items about soldiers in the field, the ability to communicate wherever one is can be a very comforting and reassuring facility.

10. 'Delegators' (ie those who pass on any ICT work to others) – there is a vast army of people who always delegate even simple tasks to others. This avoidance of digital technologies needs to be overcome through appropriate support.

11. Those detained in Prison (both staff and inmates) – The risk of the misuse of ICT facilities is recognised but hundreds of thousands of inmates are missing out on educational opportunities.

When I consider the vast range of those who are missing out from what others do every day and often several times a day, I feel like some lone evangelist shouting out in the wilderness, “Turn, your life around and find a new and better way of living!”

This is just an extract from a 3-page article, 'e-Portfolios - getting to where others can’t reach?'

Web2.0 & e-Portfolios

If you need a strong argument for introducing e-Portfolios into the classroom, and more importantly, into the wider experience of your students, look no further than the reality of being able to use Web2.0 tools within an e-safe environmet such as eFolio.

For some time now I have been considering the benefits of Web2.0 ever since Terry Freedman published his first book on Web2.0. His website and newsletter are well worth following. However, in thinking how things have progressed in terms of e-Portfolios over the last two years in schools, we might say 'Not a lot!' It seems to me that not only are teachers afraid of being accused of being members of a '5th column' but that technicians and Network Managers in particular are not keen to incorporate every different configuration of a very fluid Web2.0 supply. And, of course, as students mature, they will want an ever-increasing set of tools not available on their school's VLE.

What I am trying to underline is that there is a lot of progress being made in Web2.0, whether it be for 'free tools' for the Home Access netbooks or advanced tools for personal development (see my post on Chan Sook). However, I feel that these tools are not being successfully embedded within our classroom culture.

MY solution, as the title of this post implies, is that the e-Portfolio is that place where students can embed their own personal preferences of Web2.0 tools, as and when they are ready for them, without any intrusion into the 'high-security' domain of the VLE.

Social Sites & e-Portfolios

Most schools now have a good 'Acceptable Use Policy' (or AUP)concerning the use of VLEs and e-mail etiquette etc. Many of us have had these policies in place for years!

But for many, the thought of laying down guidance concerning social networking appears to have come a bit late - most kids are already doing it!

It therefore came as a pleasant discovery to me, to see someone actually taking the trouble to think things through and to share her thoughts, in true collaborative spirit, requesting responses from her readers. Jen Hegna's article can be seen in full in Doug Johnson's blog.

My only concern, as I commented, is that I would like to see some more positive suggestions and less of the negativity if young people are to accept these guidelines in schools.

As far as eFolio is concerned we have a strong view of e-safety (we call it 'the sanctity of eFolio security') and thus an internal mailing system, feedback, polls etc can all be safely managed within the privacy that eFolio affords.

So, let's see more suggestions about the positive outcomes of social connections within any e-Portfolio, including eFolio!

Getting started with eFolio

I was recently going through the eFolio on-line support materials and the thought suddenly came to me, "Wow! isn't this easy!"

What I was thinking, of course, is how the new beginner in e-Portfolio thinking comes to terms with this possibly strange environment. But then, I thought to myself, "Why is it that other systems have to be so darn difficult?"

Take, for instance the whole issue of interoperability. This can be an absolute minefield for anyone - the top brains in this subject are still only getting part-way there, so what chance us mere mortals? The 'brains' at eFolioWorld and Avenet have put together the best set of templates for exporting data in IMS format - and as a user one wouldn't know that anything special was happening.

Where data needs to be exported in the IMS format everything that the learner has placed in the pre-formed templates is there in place and ready to process without any effort to collate or reorganise data sets at all!

But more generally, as one browses over the various help-sheets the reader soon discovers that the icons and layout are logical and with intuitively interactive help always available.

So, the question that I ask myself is, 'Why, if this is so easy in eFolio, do people want to go into the complexities of managing less-secure and cloud-based systems where artefacts cannot always be safely managed or withdrawn?

Ethics or Common Sense?

I recently came across a very sensible question on a NZ forum which needs a response. The original question I quote:

May I start a new discussion on the ethics of digital media and how we deal with it currently in our schools?
What are some of your guidelines on student-teacher confidentiality and rights in your school handbooks?
I am concerned on the behalf of students who have 100's of photo's from school camps, balls and sports days placed on a shared network drive for the whole school to access, or even worse, on a webpage.
Has the permission of the students or the caregivers of these students been sought for this exposure and is it any different to displaying the pictures on the school notice board?
Another ethical issue that concerns me about Eportfolios is the hosting and integrity of the host sites on the cloud, for example, there are rumours that Facebook is
selling your public profile pictures to advertisers to use without your expressed permission.
Could this happen to other information on the cloud? I suggest not, if it was hosted by the MOE.
What other ethical views are there on this?
* Video Evidence
* Photo Storage
* Blogs - Access levels
* Cloud Data integrity

One answer came back fairly promptly:

It's all very well suggesting that people should store their data in the cloud, but when you do this you partially lose control over them, in ways that aren't necessarily in your interest.

For example, data stored in a foreign country is subject to the data protection laws of that country. I'm pretty sure the NZ government doesn't allow its data to be stored overseas for this reason.

Also, you can't just count on the good will of these "cloud services" to keep on running - or even working in your interest. For example, Facebook has absolutely no incentive to help you extract your data from it - "why would we let you do that, are you thinking of leaving Facebook?" This even applies to the Google's of this world. At the end of the day, they exist to make money - not store your data for you forever.

To me, it would make sense if a user's portfolio data was stored somewhere that at least has a partial interest in it staying around.

The answers make good sense but, as far as I am concerned, there are four very simple answers to all of this:

1. An e-Portfolio is not very different to any other website or school intranet or VLE. There are usually clearly stated policies about the disclosure of personal data - in particular that photographs should not identify named individuals. Children should be encouraged to use avatars or pseudonyms on any public pages of their e-Portfolio. However, in encouraging children to feel that they 'own' their e-Portfolio they need to be more aware of these issues, or of revealing private family matters. Teachers, parents and carers need therefore to help their charges in these responsibilities.
   
   
2. We do not know how information about us might be used in the future. The skills of target advertising, for instance, are not going to get blunted. In years to come it might be quite possible for an automated process to access an old photograph placed on a repository to identify that we are an animal lover for instance. My simple solution is not to risk the placing of anything of a personal nature in the hands of unknown or unvetted 'guardians'.
   
   
3. The functionality of an e-Portfolio can get seriously confusing if different artefacts are stored in a variety of different repositories. Grown intelligent adults might be able to manage a whole set of artefacts 'scattered around the universe' - but this is not the case for most of our children in schools, the slow learner, the elderly or even those who just don't want the hassle of keeping a log of where everything is. The solution, keep everything to be used in the e-Portfolio in one place where links can easily be established and where the same artefacts can be used possibly several times for different purposes.
   
   
4. Having said keep everything together - that is with one reservation. The e-Portfolio is not a substitute for a VLE - or even one's own PC. The e-Portfolio is not a pantechnicon to move around every single jotting, practice exercise or classroom test. From one's PLE, VLE workspace or laptop items which are of some significance can be copied to the e-Portfolio for specific e-Portfolio purposes. So again, use the e-Portfolio for the purposes for which it is intended - and not as a general dumping ground.
   

So, at whatever age or ability, I would just suggest use a bit of common sense!

Post Script:

For those wanting to further consider the ethics of ICT and in particular relation to e-Portfolios, I thoroughly commend Simon Grant's book, "Electronic Portfolios: Personal information, personal development and personal values".

Chicken or Egg?

We have a very difficult situation concerning the introduction of e-Portfolios into the classroom. Until such time as teachers are able to free themselves from old didactic methods, until they are brave enough to let go of the reins or at least allow a bit of slack, there is very little reason to use an e-Portfolio.

On the other hand, without adequate technology, both in the classroom and beyond there is little hope of being able to do even the simplest of tasks that would benefit from using an e-Portfolio.

Unfortunately, there is also a third element with which we must contend, that of the silo-mentality of many institutions who only see the e-Portfolio as a one-purpose tool for the use of their individual institution. (see my paper, ‘Who’s Hijacking Our e-Portfolios?’)

Prior to using an ICT solution perhaps one of the first activities that caught my imagination was that of dividing my class into groups and brainstorming an issue on a large sheet of paper. But after several re-draws of the proposed solution something of the fire of the activity had died down. Yes the discussions or even arguments that took place were always excellent but somehow we never captured the dialogues between the students.

Later on I introduced the concept of blogging, starting by using a paper-based activity. Yes, again this produced howls of laughter and a definite broadening of understanding about how others felt on the topic in question.

If teachers are comfortable with this level of freedom within the classroom, where the outcomes may be quite different to what one might have planned, and if the teacher is then able to help the students learn from the exercise, then, and only then, might we be able to demand on the grounds of curriculum enhancement the technologies we want.

Senior Leadership and Management Teams (SLMTs), as we call them in the UK, need to be convinced however that the learning will be deep learning. This needs demonstration of teacher competence in managing such scenarios as the above before the leap of faith that justifies the investment in equipment and the access to electronic collaborative tools.

Yes, blogs and wikis may be a good start but are not necessary if students have a good e-Portfolio system. As a senior head of department for many years, I would prefer to provide my teachers and their students with an e-safe system that allows the controls to be gently lifted from a totally secure or private condition through stages of group collaboration and steadily expanding the number and variety of school-based and external audiences with which any individual child is able to cope.

A good e-Portfolio, such as eFolio, provides adequate facilities to manage one’s artefacts, to use feedback from peers and mentors, to reproduce electronic versions of the collaborative activities as mentioned above and repeatedly revising one’s planning, drafting and reflections within the e-Portfolio.

In the UK I feel that most schools have been encouraged for a number of years to develop these collaborative skills either on paper or in small groups huddled around a limited number of computers. Similarly, in the UK, we have experienced over the last ten to fifteen years a large number of technological initiatives (and more still to come!) that have prepared us for the next leap of faith. But thirdly, we also have had several initiatives concerning the personalisation of learning. Again, the e-Portfolio is that special place where one’s individuality, learning styles and support by other adults lends itself to a unique repository of learning far different to the formal content delivery mechanisms of our Learning Platforms.

I would argue strongly that the UK is therefore potentially ready for e-Portfolios. However, despite my statements above, this will require a massive amount of staff training in order to help teachers understand how the e-Portfolio fits into our curriculum and can in actual fact enhance it!

BUT, this e-Portfolio explosion is not about to happen throughout the world. Many countries, even if they had the technologies and 1:1 pupil:computer ratios are still teaching in didactic, teacher-led authoritarian regimes which may not allow the individuality which an e-Portfolio supports. I suspect (and am willing to be corrected) that some parts of America are as traditional or conservative in their teaching and learning methods as mid- or eastern Europe. In other places, such as New Zealand, many teachers are already actively developing the collaborative culture upon which e-Portfolios thrive but the hierarchy are still discussing what an e-Portfolio is.

So, in returning to my original question, ‘Chicken or egg?’ I suggest that those education authorities who are most ready to introduce an e-Portfolio culture should be considering a ‘controlled explosion.’ We need all the elements of an independent learning culture, of collaboration, of an adequate sufficiency of access both within institutions and remotely through home access policies. Perhaps most fundamentally, we need a teacher education programme which can pull together all the separate benefits of an e-Portfolio for the learner.

The Rose Report

Here in the UK a government commissioned paper 'The Rose Report' (on the Primary Curriculum) has just been published.

I was particularly interested in how ICT and in particular e-Portfolios might be able to assist in this revised approach to teaching and learning. I quote one opening paragraph:

"The report explores a curriculum design based on a clear set of culturally derived aims and values, which promote challenging subject teaching alongside equally challenging cross-curricular studies. Placing literacy, numeracy, ICT and personal development at its heart, the provisional model aims to secure high achievement in these vital skills for learning and life. Six areas of learning are proposed to give schools optimum flexibility to localise the curriculum and respond to children’s different but developing abilities, to provide ample opportunities for cross-curricular and discrete teaching and to help smooth the transition from the Early Years Foundation Stage to the primary curriculum. The areas of learning are shaped by the key ideas which are deemed essential to a child’s understanding."

As far as I am concerned, ICT should support and be developed in each of six proposed "areas of learning":

• Understanding English, communication and languages;
• Mathematical understanding;
• Scientific and technological understanding;
• Human, social and environmental understanding;
• Understanding physical health and well-being;
• Understanding the arts and design.

However more relevant to this blog: ICT is one of the central "skills for learning and life" which should be developed across the curriculum, along with literacy, numeracy and personal development.

The question about how ICT can support this required combination and how in particular an e-Portfolio strategy can be used to address these issues follows:

Use of e-Portfolios in Primary Schools
The ability of even the youngest child to select what they are proud of, to compare with others' work, to listen to suggestions, to be able to review one's activities and explain why certain procedures or processes were adopted is an essential part of learning. However, the documentation of these often ephemeral activities is not always easy to do.

The e-Portfolio is by far the best way to capture any of the above, in text, scanned images or any form of 'rich media'. So long as the e-Portfolio owner (ie the pupil) has access to the web, an e-Portfolio becomes independent of any LMS, VLE, stand alone laptop, home PC or for that matter any web-enabled device.

However, I was recently reminded that valuable information needs to be transmitted TO the Primary school from the Early Years Foundation Stage assessment regime. What with 119 stages to report on, all at different times and possibly in a different order from one child to another, the e-Portfolio is quintessentially apposite.

'Learning for Life' not only embraces those generic ICT skills which will last one's lifetime and evolve as new technologies become universally acceptable, it also has connotations of selecting and capturing those artefacts which have some enduring qualities related to learning processes which are worth keeping and reflecting upon both presently and at a later date.

Again, the e-Portfolio is most apposite in providing a medium of portability. At one time when a child moved from one school to another, either 'sideways' as when moving house or 'vertically' as in moving to 'the big school' children would take an envelope or the school would post on a parcel of exercise books and other artefacts (which invariably would not be seen by many staff). Now that much more work is done electronically, these transitions can also be performed through the learner's e-Portfolio. Sometimes called 'capstone' events, the learner has the opportunity to carefully select those artefacts which best represent 'ME'. (And they can be seen at any time, by any number of staff.)

However, the e-Portfolio also provides the site for a number of e-safe activities, such as peer review, collaboration, surveys and informal formative feedback as well as inputs from parents, carers and mentors.

Where the e-Portfolio is hosted externally and therefore is not limited by the constraints of the VLE, the young child can begin to organise one's site, selecting from various templates, skins, fonts and avatars in order to create a web-presence or 'digital self' which helps to reflect a personal self-image. See this web-page for examples of how the one e-Portfolio can evolve with the child.

Well, what do you want for an e-Portfolio?

I am aware that people from all over the world (54 countries at the last count) are watching this blog and my demo eFolio site. However, I would like to hear more from you all.

Jamin Lietze has produced an excellent 'wish-list' of what he would like to see in his perfect e-Portfolio system for his school. His list raises some interesting but conflicting challenges:

• Can a 'free' system provide user-support, upgrades and maintenance?
  
• Can one system meet the needs of the pupils in an 'all-age' school, and the needs of staff PDP etc?
  
• What about parental access?
  
• What issues need to be addressed concerning an externally hosted system?
  

Please respond - what issues do you see as needing to be resolved?

e-Safety and e-Portfolios

Today I was challenged by one of the blogs that I regularly read, that of John Pallister's e-Portfolios and PLTS. John has done an exceptional job in developing e-Portfolios both within his own school and in the recent MOSEP publication. I quote his item in full, for those who do not usually see his group's blog, in order to encourage some debate about e-Safety on this blog:

"While preparing for an eSafety meeting I found that I was motivated to; I wanted to; I was driven to, write this post. But that does not really make sense; I need to get all of the issues sorted out/ organised for my meeting, so why, at this stage should I share my thinking with others?

"Over the years I have read a lot about eSafety. A lot of the advice/ articles/Blogs have been brought to my attention via Twitter and the numerous on-line discussions that have taken place in a wide range of communities. I think that I have a fair handle on eSafety, so if I do a bit of research and a bit of reading, I should have something to offer the meeting. But again something is telling me to write, to Blog, to share!

"It must be because I have not really got all of the issues sorted out in my head and so feel the need to go through the writing/Blogging process to help me to sort out my thinking.

"I need to decide where I sit along the continuum of eSafety that at one end, has the walled garden, where learners are protected by a rabbit proof, giraffe proof and social software proof ‘fence’, while at the other end learners are allowed open access to all of the available resources and tools.

"Looking at the extremes; the walled garden is an attractive proposition for schools. Learners only have access to what (the opportunities) that the gardener (the teacher) thinks that the learners (the plants) need to grow (learn) and thrive. So long as the ‘fence’ is designed to keep out all of the nasty experiences, all should be well. The school (teacher) defines what should be allowed to get through the fence; the learners are safe and get on and, hopefully learn, in a ‘safe’ place. Duty of care fulfilled. Philosophy, if you do not understand it, or you are not ‘told’ to provide learners with access to specific tools, applications or experiences, do not do it, fence against it.

"3.30pm arrives, the learners are let out to roam their Personal, home based, Learning environment. There are fewer fences in sight; they have access to tools and applications that provide a wide range of opportunities and experiences. Many experiences will be positive and support their learning; some could be detractors and some could put the learner at risk. So we cannot rely on ‘fencing’ systems to protect out learners 24 hours of the day, 7 days of the week.

"Historically we have educated/taught our learners how to survive, that is, what they need to do, or not do, to stay safe in the big, bad world. We teach them the Green Cross code; we promote Cycling Proficiency; we provide information about the risks of alcohol and drug abuse and we advise them not to talk to strangers. We do not have fences along all of the pavements that run along the side of every road, we do not have footbridges over, or under-passes under, all major roads. We educate young learner to behave in a safe fashion.

"So thinking about the other end of the continuum, would it be better to provide learners with access to ‘everything’ and then ‘educate’ them in eSafety?

"If that was the chosen strategy, one challenge would be to make sure that every teacher fully ‘understood’ the potential, for learning, of the current and evolving Web 2/social tools, and that they appreciated the risks. Without this background and understanding we could not expect teachers to teach the skills and understanding that our current generation of learners will need if they are to stay safe. Somehow we would need to spend a lot of time working with teachers before we could begin to move towards ‘un-fenced’ personal learning environments. How can we do this?"

My first question would be, 'How is this done in other countries?' Does anyone have a magic pill?