Where in the World?

Currently this blog has recorded 11518 readers from 129 countries and 2763 cities. (see bottom rh column). However, I would like to hear from the many silent partners, particularly at this time, on the subject of the age-groups of ePortfolio users. I am attempting to collate a list of 'Use Cases' from around the world which will demonstarte that people of all ages, from Pre-school, through mainstream education, VET, FE, HE and adult education are currently using ePortfolios for a variety of purposes. In particular, I am looking for more examples of the use of ePortfolios in order to support adult learners - or even those who use an ePortfolio system for a Community of Practice, in retirement or Care Homes. If readers can supply me with a link to your ePortfolio examples, or relate in approximately 100 words how you or your organisation use ePortfolios, I would be most grateful. If you want to email me, please use: support@maximise-ict.co.uk

The Complexity of Implementing e-Portfolios

The title of this post is taken from the post written by Vic Jenkins at the University of Bath reporting on the recent Keynote presented by Lisa Gray (JISC) and Gordon Joyes (University of Nottingham). I found the title challenging enough, but the actual post is even more challenging and needs some careful understanding. The video was well put together (despite the audio feedback!) - and I found myself viewing it over and over again.

Some five 'Threshold Concepts' are listed, each followed by a number of claimed 'preconceptions'. However, as I commented on Vic's post, I suspect that many (but not all) of the issues raised by the 'preconceptions' are nothing to do with ePortfolio design or lack of it, but rather echoes of traditional teaching and learning styles which need to be thrown out before ePortfolios can be introduced.

One thing that continues to worry me, as reflected in the Presentation, is the belief that an ePortfolio system is the sole tenure of HEIs, as this again colours much of the published ePortfolio thinking. I really do wish that more ePortfolio evangelists would look beyond the silos within which they work or that they might look beyond the remit of a constraining research grant.

If an ePortfolio is really 'for life' then it cannot be weighed down with built-in assessment tools, whole schemes of work, every artefact generated over four years, every blog-post and feedback or made so technically complex that a 5yr-old or aged granny cannot use it.

Don't get me wrong, I have every praise for the work that JISC in particular does do. But I really do hope that we can come to some sort of consensus as to the simplicity that an ePortfolio such as eFolio can offer.

ascilite 2009

An impressive paper by Gordon Joyes and Lisa Gray(In Same places, different spaces. Proceedings ascilite Auckland2009) entitled, 'Effective practice with e-portfolios: How can the UK experience inform practice?' makes a good read, even if only 10 pages. As Lisa Gray reports, '... Gordon Joyes, myself (Lisa) and Elizabeth Hartnell-Young presented on our work at the Ascilite conference in Auckland in December, and won an 'outstanding paper award' for it .'

Under the heading 'Why is JISC exploring e-Portfolios' the following extract should be noted:

"Before learners enter higher education,within schools and 14-19 sectors, there has been an increasing focus on a national curriculum that values skills. A new qualification, the Diploma has emerged, with the development of personal, learning and thinking skills (PLTS) at its core. e-Portfolio technologies provide ways in which these skills can be evidenced. But perhaps the most important reason for considering the potential of e-portfolios to support learning and teaching is the emerging evidence from practitioners and learners of the value of developing e-portfolios, not only to support more profound forms of learning, adding value to personalised and reflective models of learning, but also facilitating the transition between institutions and stages of education, supporting application to education and employment, staff appraisal and applications for professional accreditation, and supporting learners based in the workplace. "

However, many of the points referring to mainstream education remain undeveloped. As part of my ‘evangelical’ efforts to promote e-Portfolios in mainstream education, therefore, I wonder if we should be creating a paper entitled,

‘Effective practice with e-portfolios: How can the UK HE experience inform practice in mainstream education?

To this end I would dearly like to discuss with practitioners (possibly at Cumbria?) how the lessons learnt in HE can be developed for a nationwide and all-age implementation.

Creating future-proofed graduates

On the RSC-West Midlands blog, Kevin Brace reports back on the recent BCU conference. What he reports makes good sense as far as Higher Education is concerned.

But is this not also true for all sectors of society? Should we not already be doing this with our youngsters aged 5-16? Is this not the purpose of our 14-19 Diploma courses? Is this not what we should be doing in Adult Education? Even those anticipating retirement may still have some 20-30 years of a future to look forwards to. Just because we might have retired from full-time employment does not mean that we have rejected all chances of further employment or productivity.

Whatever education sector(s) we may belong to we need to look more carefully at the implications of Kevin's report. For instance, if blended learning is seen to be more effective, should we not be looking at ways of delivering this within Secondary education? Should not Employers be looking more carefully at how their VLEs or e-Portfolio systems support CPD or re-location etc? Should not e-Portfolios become mandatory for examining student suitability for courses even before interview? Should not Primary schools be looking more closely at how an e-Portfolio system can enhance transition to Secondary schools?

Is it not time that, even if Becta cannot get its act together concerning e-Portfolios, the DCSF and JISC got together to constructively resolve this present debacle. Surely it is time for the e-Portfolio to be seen as a Lifelong and Lifewide facility, and even centrally funded as in parts of the Netherlands? - Or even state-wide as in Minnesota or New Zealand?

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.

ePortfolio Commons

I hesitate to appear critical of an institution or individuals that are making an attempt to promote e-Portfolios. I hope that the authors of 'ePortfolio Commons' will read this post in the constructive manner intended. What first caught my eye was the challenging statement:

"Are you ready for your final semester in the college? Have you started preparation and application for a job and/or further study? How can you enhance your chance of success? Register and join our ePortfolio hands-on workshop to start creating your own ePortfolio to strategically showcase your capabilities and achievements! "

As much as I applaud the efforts of any to get students to realise the value of an e-Portfolio, I feel that the above is a very narrow and 'last century' view of the function or purpose of an e-Portfolio, possibly coloured by the references used. So, perhaps I may be allowed to say "Great! BUT!"

1. The e-Portfolio should not be seen as a last minute 'rush job' but as something built up over many years, certainly starting at the begining of the college course if not before.
2. Job-hunting is possibly one of the least effective purposes for using an e-Portfolio, unless potential employers are really ICT savvy and are willing to look at and know how to navigate an e-Portfolio.
3. One of the greatest functions of an e-Portfolio is as a secure and private space for formative feedback from peers and mentors.
4. Yet another valuable function of the e-Portfolio is that of planning and drafting ideas which can be worked upon collaboratively.
5. Above all, students should be made well aware of the image that they are communicating to others and that the patois of the younger generation or a careless selection of photographs might not be received well by potential employers or university professors.
6. Care should be given to thinking out where the e-Portfolio is to be hosted, by an academic institution or 'in the Cloud'. Both solutions have their problems - which is why I have developed eFolio for UK and European students.

So yes, my feeling is 'get on with constructing your e-Portfolio as a matter of urgency'. But don't think that it is just a tool for showcasing or PDP.

Perhaps I should add that the list of categories by nations is very simple. It might have been that in the UK 10 years ago HE was using e-Portfolios mainly for showcasing and PDP but that is no longer the case. Secondly, e-Portfolios are becoming more popular in mainstream education, even in primary schools. I can give you several examples of different approaches to using eFolio.

A New Year - but Old Mantras?

The ‘New Year’ is a time when we invariably look forward to new initiatives, a fresh start or a promise to follow New Year’s Resolutions. However, recent proclamations appear to be promising ‘more of the same’ – is this really all we can expect?  Are we really being encouraged to 'throw out the baby with the bathwater' all because of a few 'bad apples'?

Our friendly Welsh essayist, Graham Attwell, is in fighting spirit for his socio-political vision when he states:

“If Open Education is to mean anything, it has to address the question of social divisions including class, gender and race. I am unconvinced this can be done from inside the existing educational institutions, although of course it will need the support of those working in those organisations. Instead I think we need to use the power of the Internet to provide opportunities for education and learning outside the present system and to embed those learning activities in wider communities than the present institutions address.” See:

http://www.pontydysgu.org/2010/01/a-radical-definition-of-open-education/

Tony Bates flags up another essay on college costs in an article by Michael Bassis,

Again, another eloquent essay in which subtle misrepresentations are embedded in otherwise constructive thinking:

“Let's return to the case of online learning. This design began as an inexpensive way to deliver the standard curriculum. While it did provide increased access to many students, it was widely regarded as inferior to traditional degrees delivered by faculty in the classroom. But online learning is proving to be a classic example of a disruptive technology.”

See: http://www.businessweek.com/bschools/content/dec2009/bs20091221_519869.htm  .

I don’t know from which planet Michael Bassis originates or how old he is, but surely, some 30 years ago we were already exploring how Learning Platforms could support ‘anytime access’ and how this steadily evolved into some of the exciting VLE deliveries at local, national and international scales. Nothing to do with ‘inexpensive’ and certainly not ‘disruptive’.

Alongside developments in educational thinking, of recognising 10 Multiple Intelligences, of discovering the benefits of collaborative learning even with the 4 walls of a conventional classroom, of the acceptance of an increasing diversity within our classrooms and a recognition of the implications of increased family mobility it is no surprise that online learning has come of age. The relevant technologies are certainly NOT ‘disruptive’ but rather ‘supportive’ of educational thinking.

Again, sadly, Jon Mott and David Wiley in an extensive article fail to recognise the root cause of the problem in their paper:

http://ineducation.ca/article/open-learning-cms-and-open-learning-network  they state:

“Alternatively labeled learning management systems (LMSs), learning content management systems (LCMSs), and virtual learning environments (VLEs), such software has generally been focused primarily on helping teachers increase the efficiency of the administrative tasks of instruction (e.g., distribute documents, make assignments, give quizzes, initiate discussion boards, assign students to working groups, etc.). This instructor-centrism comes despite the best intentions and efforts of system designers, early adopters, and instructional support staff who sought to use these systems to transform the dominant learning modality of higher education from traditional, classroom-based instruction to online and hybrid courses. In practice, the vast majority of instructors who adopted the CMS largely ignored Bloom's challenge to make an "educational contribution of the greatest magnitude," instead focusing on increasing the administrative efficiency of their jobs.”

In my opinion all of the writers have failed to appreciate the root cause: it is not a failure of the technologies but, rather, a failure of some educators to move with the times, to take on board new teaching and learning styles and to appreciate how modern technologies can dramatically assist these strategies. As a practising technologist for over 50 years, I would suggest that just jumping to yet another isolate technology as the solution to all our problems will solve nothing.

As this new year dawns, let’s stop laughing at those tutors who still use the IWB as if it were no more than an OHP, let’s stop taking inward gasps of dismay when we see students actually printing out their essays for marking, let’s stop procuring content for a CMS on a ‘take-it-or-leave-it’ basis but rather, ask the Senior Leadership Teams why these things are still happening. Let’s ban the familiar setting of homework as ‘finish off your classwork notes’, let’s ban the use of pre-scripted activities that have no sense of personalisation or topicality, let’s remove all ‘pigeon-holes’ or ‘duckets’ from our staff-rooms and begin to establish liberated teaching and learning norms which equally apply to all sectors of education.

'Transformative change' is not so much about the use of contemporary technology but rather about the mindset of the instructors – or even the assessment Boards.

Instead of the powerful voice of HE maintaining the didactic traditions of pre-Victorian England, perhaps it is the time to re-vitalise all sections of academia not by introducing low-cost technologies so much as enforcing rigorous Schemes of Work which recognise improved efficiencies of teaching and learning and the support that contemporary technologies can offer.

Although all of the above refers to CMS/LMS/VLEs etc the arguments for e-Portfolios are similar:  Confusion and ignorance relating to the provenance of the e-Portfolio along with poor implemenations and even poorer teaching strategies are sufficient to encourage anyone thinking about e-Portfolios to drop the subject like a 'hot potato'.

Rather, as I have said frequently, 'Let the VLE do what it does best and allow the e-Portfolio to do what it can best do."

Research or Introspection?

From the illustrious University of Canterbury (New Zealand) I saw this impressive report entitled, 'NZCARN Research Symposium Paper on ICT'. I quote the section on e-Portfolios:

"e-Portfolios are increasingly being adopted in a range of educational settings for a variety of purposes including learning, assessment, presentation of achievement, and personal professional development (Stefani, Mason, & Pegler, 2007). In terms of learning and personal development, e-portfolios can have a key role in supporting individuals to reach their full potential by promoting the development of lifelong learning skills such as reflection, self regulation and collaboration (Lamont, 2007). The advancement of 21st century educational technologies has focused attention on the e-portfolio as a powerful learning tool, and has prompted many authorities to consider the benefits (Fox, Britain, & Hall, 2009). Fox et al. (2009) identify some additional key components of an e-portfolio, which are essential for our conception of an e-portfolio: author ownership, where the user can maintain a personal lifelong record of learning; interoperability, allowing the user to transfer their e-portfolio from one environment to another; and confidentiality, where students have the opportunity to think critically about their work and to speak openly about their progress in a secure environment.

"Mahara (http://www.mahara.org/ ) is a fully featured open source electronic portfolio, which was developed in 2006 by the New Zealand e-Portfolio Project funded by the New Zealand Tertiary Education Commission’s e-learning Collaborative Development Fund. Mahara is a web-based e-portfolio, designed for tertiary education as a learning portfolio which is constructivist in nature (Stefani et al., 2007), with the emphasis being on the ownership and lifelong learning and development of the user. Mahara was designed with accessibility, ownership, interoperability and transferability in mind, and includes collaborative and communication tools. Mahara is currently being used within teacher education programmes in Massey University, the University of Canterbury, Auckland University of Technology and Victoria University. It is also being piloted with some New Zealand secondary school students (Fox et al., 2009). The design features support ongoing collaborative approaches to action and research to which NZCA&RN aspires.

"Within the context of action research and related approaches, the e-portfolio has the potential for practitioner and researcher ownership of a lifelong virtual private space for: setting and reviewing goals; reflecting on actions, learning and progress; engaging in professional critical dialogue; disseminating knowledge; and showcasing skills and dispositions. This virtual space can be accessible from anywhere; and the user can select particular aspects to share with individuals and communities of practice. The virtual space also allows for recording emerging knowledge, skills and ideas privately until such time as they are mature enough to share with others, or be dismissed or laid aside to return to at a later date. An e-portfolio tool therefore, has great potential to enhance collaborative action and research networking, and to navigate the ‘braided rivers’ of action research approaches and ‘whanau of interest’ (Macfarlane, 2009). However it is important to note that the issues identified by Margaret Lamont (2009) when implementing ePortfolios in teacher education are also likely to apply to their use in research too. These include equitable access and development of a shared vision of purpose among the NZCA&RN communities of practice."

To me, this looks like encouragement to further introspection rather than trying to understand how Lifelong, Lifewide Learning and Leisure can be supported through an e-Portfolio. Mahara might well be a good basic tool for those in HE but what of the rest of society, for all Ages, Aptitudes, Abilities, Accesibilities and Attitudes?

A Bridge Too Far?

Earlier this term I wrote an article for the Autumn issue of the CRA e-journal, 'On Reflection'. This journal is a very practical and down-to-earth commentary on real issues within FE relating to the Recording of Assessment and the whole area of e-Portfolios.

My paper, 'A Bridge Too Far?', asks questions about the feasibility of introducing e-Portfolios with FE colleges, and the pressures that this would or does raise in particular for tutors and support staff.

For those who are regular readers of this blog my conclusion to the article will not be surprising:

CONCLUSION: The e-Portfolio must not be hijacked - not by Industry, nor Higher Education, nor mainstream schools, nor adult Training Institutions, nor by the QCA, nor any VLE supplier but, more importantly, not by factions within the education system who may have a limited view of its real potential. The e-Portfolio is a dynamic, evolving and personal item of equipment for everyone and for every aspect of their studies, career development or leisure use, which should be available to all - from '5-95' - by right. How it is used by both our students and staff will vary according to college policies, learning styles, digital competencies and academic maturity. Suffice it to say that the above list of features (in the full article) should make the e-Portfolio accessible to all whatever their age, aptitude, ability, accessibility or attitude.

A bridge too far? No! But most staff need much more support to understand and adopt the above concepts and press on together with confidence.

Two new documents have been published by JISC and prepared by an illustrious team headed up by Janet Strivens of the Centre for Recording Achievement, dated August 2009.

The first, entitled, 'The role of e-portfolios in formative and summative assessment practices', at 66 pages is both a helpful and informative document, despite it being published in Word format. The second, entitled, 'The Role of e-Portfolios in Formative and Summative Assessment: Case Studies of Practice' at a staggering 175 pages takes a bit of time to digest!

The two documents together make a good presentation of the state of e-Portfolios in the UK within the HE sector. The combined wisdom of the team presents a picture that cannot be ignored.

However, there are still too many anomalies and areas which need to be addressed, such as the time needed to train staff and enable them to be comfortable with this medium that might be quite different to anything that they have experienced before.

My main frustration is that over the last few years little has changed in as much as some so-called e-Portfolios still appear to be little more than a substitutionary VLE, delivering both content and in some cases assessment tools built into the e-Portfolio. Again, some institutions' criteria for assessment are more concerned with the skills required for the construction of the e-Portfolio rather than assessing the content and processes demonstrated and the attitude of the student. Questions relating to the use of Macromedia or any web-tool service, for instance, should be irrelevant to the purpose of assessment for which the tool is to be used.

The fact that most of the e-Portfolio systems are still an embedded part of the institutions' delivery is a serious cause for concern and fundamental to issues of portability and student 'ownership'. One emergent problem is that of security, whereby assessors could remotely gain access to parts of the VLE which was not necessarily part of a student's e-Portfolio. Similarly, (an old 'hobby-horse' of mine) there is some discussion about using different e-Portfolios for different purposes, whereas I would suggest that a good e-Portfolio system such as eFolio can deliver different 'views' to different audiences, concurrently, using much of the same content for different purposes.

Perhaps the key-word relating to the functionality of any e-Portfolio is 'interoperability' - and yet the topic does not appear to be mentioned anywhere in the report. Again, the report and case-studies reflect, in my opinion, a significant lack of acceptance of 'transition' and lifelong, lifewide learning as being an important part of the e-Portfolio concept.