Which ePortfolio tool for staff and students?

I recently picked up on a post, typical of many, that suggested a list of requirements of an ePortfolio.  In response to the author I wrote the following but have added a few more points here:

Although I think that in principle your response is logical, it is also both introspective and contradictory. For instance, you list Lifelong Access (or rather ownership?) as being a requirement and yet you apparently require an institutional repository. Will the Nursery or Primary school maintain the lifelong support?  Or multiple repositories as one moves through life? You require integration with Moodle - but what about the other 50+ VLEs?

And what of the learner?  Every person is different and has different skills and ways of representing themselves.  I fear that an institutionally based assessment tool will not allow the individual freedoms of self-representation that I support with eFolio.

You do not clarify if your hypothetical ePortfolio system is for institutional use with all the facilities required for rubrics, submission dates, overdue flagging, assessments and sign-offs etc and therefore institutionally owned or is it for ownership, collaboration and self representation etc?

You suggest that it should be free and at the same time lifelong. I am amused as to what support a 5-year old or ancient granny will get from a system that is free. Are you assuming that there is no on-line staffing to support maintenance, monitoring, upgrading and technical help. These are all significant costs that have to be paid for by someone, somewhere.

Wikipedia unfortunately gives a really out-dated and rigid definition of three distinct types of ePortfolio. We are now in the age of the cloud and should see our ePortfolio tools in this light.

Another requirement of the personally owned ePortfolio is that of the ability to present different 'views' or personas to different audiences. This is essential when presenting one's ePortfolio to different clients or potential employers whereby the learner is able to represent (or re-present) themselves as having different characteristics according to the job-specification etc.

I recently attended a conference which was purported to address the cost benefits of ePortfolios. It was an excellent conference but focussed specifically on a range of institutionally owned and operated assessment tools. These related to specific courses of study for a particular type of student and possibly where assessments may support a learner taking a number of qualifications by different examination boards.

Until such time as we are able to contain all the aspects of assessment within the VLE we will continue to have this confusion as to what an ePortfolio really is. For me I would argue that the ePortfolio is NOT an institutional tool, although it may be encouraged by the institution. Just think, do we only advise one form of mobile device? Do we only demand one form of note-taking? Or research method?... etc etc.

The ePortfolio, I suggest, is a tool that can provide and support evidences of rich-media artefacts, dialogues, evidences of collaboration and blogs etc which the student uses to supplement the in-house assessment system. This way the conundrum of ownership is resolved.

The Evolution of the VLE

I was recently asked if I had written anything on the history of the VLE (aka MLE) in UK schools. As it happened, I had a half-completed paper, based on a presentation that I made last year. Although I did not (purposely) mention ePortfolios within the VLE document, I thought that some readers might be entertained by my personal account of the evolution, or even revolution, that the introduction of the VLE has gone through over the last 30 years.

The .pdf document at 4Mb can be accessed here.

My paper does not pretend to be an accurate history of VLEs for the simple reason that the activities mentioned inevitably were performed in different institutions at different times. And again, it only refers to the work within mainly Secondary education and does not refer to the immense amount of work done by universities around the world as a precursor to the work in schools. (See Wikipedia) I can only go by my own experiences and the results of my research for my Bill Tagg paper of 2007.

Product Structure

I have just been following an Elluminate webinar from The ePortfolio California Community. Jennifer Lau, of Marymount College, presents her findings of a significant pilot with a clarity and openness not always found in such presentations. One of the most significant issues that she identified is encapsulated in her slide (#23) as above.

Jennifer illustrates the three main groups of users or 'constituencies' within an institution and argues for the possibility of combining all three groups into one tool. However, this is a time of a potential explosion in ePortfolio usage, when not only will much larger numbers of students be using ePortfolios, but also, that they will be using them in conjunction with a large number of subjects (typically up to 15 in a normal Secondary school). If that were not enough there is also the expectancy of a massive increase in 'Learning Analytics', based on the institution's MIS. Regular readers of this blog may recall one of my mantras:

"Let the VLE do what it best does and
leave the ePortfolio for what it can best do."

For several years now, I have been repeatedly suggesting that the ePortfolio is not the solution to the network manager's prayer whereby learners' user-areas are no longer part of the LMS of VLE. (See my paper, 'Who is hijacking my ePortfolio?' best read in full-screen mode) Far from it, my suggestion is that the VLE must work much harder at providing information to both learners and faculty, JIT and also of a much more refined quality. The MIS, through the VLE should be capable of providing much more formative information, on demand, and in 'real time'.

I therefore see the ePortfolio as a conduit between on the one hand both faculty and students, and on the other hand, the VLE as the repository of all formal work and data for which the institution has responsibility.

Another whole area that Jennifer Lau does not address is that of portability. If the learner's ePortfolio is so closely bound to the institution, as Jennifer suggests, how will the ePortfolio untangle itself when the student moves to another institution? Interoperability is not mentioned and neither is IP. Concerning IP, it is much better that any files that 'belong' to the institution are securely housed in the VLE rather than included within the 'private' catacombs of the ePortfolio.

ePortfolios in the U.S.: Slowly Catching on

For an independent view of the ePortfolio scene I have asked Kate Cunningham (see below) to present her views of ePortfolio progress in the US. This is a frank summation, uncluttered by the wishful thinking of ePortfolio evangelists or student enthusiasts. Read on!

While ePortfolios have gained popularity throughout the globe as the future of learning and presentation, their institutional implementation across the American school system is sadly lacking. In fact, ePortfolios do not have broad base use in higher education, although about 100 institutions represented themselves at a recent global technology conference to talk about ePortfolios.

There are, of course, Virtual Learning Environments in different American Universities. I only recently graduated from an American institution of higher learning, and it was here that the school's specific VLE, powered by the Sakai Project, was used. While the tools provided through this specific VLE were functional enough, I was taken aback by how little it was used.

When I asked friends attending different universities, the extent to which they used a VLE was just as minimal. Of course, the VLE was certainly popularly employed for the dissemination of grades, the uploading of assignments, and the downloading of various course texts. However, for the sake of preserving student work, creating multi-format presentations, or accomplishing anything that would be of a lasting nature, university IT tools were short of the mark.

Wikis are more commonly used within the university structure, although, again they are not implemented on a basis that crosses through courses. In my experience, certain professors asked their students to use Wikis, but most didn't. In one specific course that stands out in my mind, we used a Wiki not just as a place to post assignments but also as a presentational platform to show our work to everyone in the class, as well as to work together on group projects by editing pages together.

While the ePortfolio idea has not yet taken off in the United States, Campus Technology, an American monthly dedicated solely to the use of technology in institutions of higher education, reported in July on the AAEEBL's first world conference set in Boston. The AAEEBL, which stands for The Association for Authentic, Experiential, and Evidence-Based Learning, convened to discuss the nature of "a profoundly disruptive technology"--ePortfolios.

The article noted:

“With the advent of AAEEBL, a global collaborative, the portfolio conversation has quickened, deepened, and broadened. Now, well past the trough of disappointment portfolio has a global association affiliated with all existing portfolio initiatives and organizations. The work is just beginning.”

Indeed, the work is just beginning, but now that more and more are talking about ePortfolios and their powerful learning tools, comprehensive implementation will be the next step. It will certainly take some time.

By-line:
This guest post is contributed by Kate Cunningham, who writes on the topics of online university rankings. She welcomes your questions and comments at her email Id: cn.kate1@gmail.com .

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."

Passion and Learning

I have just come back from 3 days of HE/FE conferences in which I heard repeated criticisms of VLEs and e-Portfolios as not meeting the needs of students. Discussions ranged from the sterility of the formats to the inability of lecturers and professors to actually understand the potential of the new technologies.

And then, next morning, I discovered this offering from Angela Maiers' presentation for K12OnlineConference09. What a refreshing change this was! This raised my spirits for the simple reason that this is what I see as the secret of eFolio. The reality of real involvement as opposed to the half-hearted efforts of our kids in the classroom that Angela refers to is at the heart of the child's ownership of learning.

As I said at one of the meetings, 'Unless all stakeholders are fully consulted before the implementation of a new technology (here talking about VLEs), unless the decision makers are educated as to the full potential of the new tools, unless they can then in turn decide how this will impact on teaching and learning, it is no wonder that the technology fails to meet expectations.'

And this is equally true of e-Portfolios. In all sectors of Education, it would appear, decision makers have failed to do the spadework of consulting with the whole range of stakeholders - and certainly do not appear to have explored how the e-Portfolio can change teaching and learning. Far too often it is the case that installations are managed by technicians who have little understanding of the future direction of education. It is essential, as Angela Maier clearly illustrates, that unless the e-Portfolio is designed (by educators) to adapt to the learner's individual passions there will be very little chance of its real takeup within education.

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.

Online Learning

A recently produced research document makes encouraging reading- even if a lot of the interesting bits are embedded within masses of statistics and tables. However, although this document is about online learning we can extend its conclusions to the additional functionality that an e-Portfolio can provide. As the document is online and available for all to see I trust that the extracts as listed below make a fair basis for further discussion.

US Department of Education
Evaluation of Evidence-Based Practices in Online Learning
May 2009

Extracts from the Executive Summary:
Online learning—for students and for teachers—is one of the fastest growing trends in educational uses of technology. The National Center for Education Statistics (2008) estimated that the number of K-12 public school students enrolling in a technology-based distance education course grew by 65 percent in the two years from 2002-03 to 2004-05. On the basis of a more recent district survey, Picciano and Seaman (2009) estimated that more than a million K–12 students took online courses in school year 2007–08.

These activities were undertaken to address four research questions:

1. How does the effectiveness of online learning compare with that of face-to-face instruction?
2. Does supplementing face-to-face instruction with online instruction enhance learning?
3. What practices are associated with more effective online learning?
4. What conditions influence the effectiveness of online learning?

Worth noting:
When a α < .05 level of significance is used for contrasts, one would expect approximately 1 in 20 contrasts to show a significant difference by chance. For 51 contrasts, then, one would expect 2 or 3 significant differences by chance. The finding of 2 significant contrasts associated with face-to-face instruction is clearly within the range one would expect by chance; the 11contrasts associated with online or hybrid instruction exceeds what one would expect by chance.

Key Findings:
The main finding from the literature review was that:

• Few rigorous research studies of the effectiveness of online learning for K–12 students have been published.
• Students who took all or part of their class online performed better, on average, than those taking the same course through traditional face-to-face instruction.
• Instruction combining online and face-to-face elements had a larger advantage relative to purely face-to-face instruction than did purely online instruction.
• Studies in which learners in the online condition spent more time on task than students in the face-to-face condition found a greater benefit for online learning.
• Most of the variations in the way in which different studies implemented online learning did not affect student learning outcomes significantly.
• The effectiveness of online learning approaches appears quite broad across different content and learner types.
• Effect sizes were larger for studies in which the online and face-to-face conditions varied in terms of curriculum materials and aspects of instructional approach in addition to the medium of instruction.
• Blended and purely online learning conditions implemented within a single study generally result in similar student learning outcomes.
• Elements such as video or online quizzes do not appear to influence the amount that students learn in online classes.
• Online learning can be enhanced by giving learners control of their interactions with media and prompting learner reflection.
• Providing guidance for learning for groups of students appears less successful than does using such mechanisms with individual learners.

Extract from the Conclusions:
In many of the studies showing an advantage for online learning, the online and classroom conditions differed in terms of time spent, curriculum and pedagogy. It was the combination of elements in the treatment conditions (which was likely to have included additional learning time and materials as well as additional opportunities for collaboration) that produced the observed learning advantages. At the same time, one should note that online learning is much more conducive to the expansion of learning time than is face-to-face instruction.

Personal Observation:
Although there are some remarkable facilities available to some students in the US, I wonder just how many children in 'average' schools in the US have the same computer ratios as in the UK or more importantly what % of the US population uses 'Home Access' as we are beginning to understand it here in the UK.

I say this because I am not sure how well we can compare 'like-with-like' across different countries. Until the UK can get down to producing similar research for our 'K-12' cohort we will not be able to begin to ascertain the added advantages of e-Portfolios.

There are still many 'loopholes' in the paper that I am still trying to clarify with the American authors. For instance, were their 'online learning courses' freestanding tools with no f2f support? And then, what does f2f mean? Individual 1:1 tuition or one lecturer in front of 200 students? Did the online courses allow collaboration? Did they allow individual investigation or project work? Was the students' work machine-marked or was it assessed by a real person? Why, in some cases did online retention rates drop - was this just bad teaching or was it online technical frustrations?

For me, the document, despite all its academic excellence, raises a number of issues which need to be discussed with those who are aware of the contexts.

Moving House?

There comes a time in most people's lives when they have to move house and take all their loved possessions with them - and what an upheaval that can be! Unfortunately some people have a perception of the e-Portfolio as being that 'removal van' or 'pantechnicon' - which is used to transport every bit and piece of value or even no-value - just sentimental rubbish that one cannot throw away. However, the analogy gets worse! The learner decides that rather than unloading all their stuff, every bit of coursework, every idle amusement, every item of correspondence shall all be kept on board - because, after all, they are not stopping here but plan to move on again. And the effort of unloading and loading up again is just too much bother.

Others prefer to travel light, only carrying with them the immediate essential tools and equipment currently used in their studies. They have a more scatter-brained approach to learning - leaving a never-ending trail of artefacts scattered, on their academic travels, around the universe - sometimes called 'cloud computing'. The trouble with this approach, as any parent knows, is that things get far too easily misplaced or even lost for ever. For those who haven't read my previous jottings on 'transition' the potential amount of travelling the learner could experience is illustrated here.

As one gets older and possibly not much wiser there is the temptation to carry around even more clutter, 'just in case'. However, as we make our way to yet another presentation or job interview we begin to understand the need to cut our 'showcase' down to the bare minimum with which our audience can cope. And this is so true of our e-Portfolios. eFolio, in particular, is capable of displaying only what we want to show, uncluttered by ephemera or irrelevancies.

I have seen far too many blogs containing discussions about how much space on a school's servers their e-Portfolios should take. Similarly, there are debates about how long students' artefacts should remain on the school's servers once the students have left. Surely, these are all irrelevancies when considering the fundamental purposes of an e-Portfolio? It all comes down to an understanding of one of my several mantras:

"Let the VLE do what it does best and
leave the e-Portfolio to do what it can best do!"

This approach leaves all coursework, past and present, on the VLE's server alongside the specialist programs, assignment briefs, schemes of work, assessment tools, on-line reporting and all the other mechanics needed to run an effective 'electrified' school. How long these 'school owned' artefacts are kept is down to the institution's Policies.

The e-Portfolio, on the other hand, should be seen as belonging to the learner and need only contain those artefacts and tools that the student considers needful in their present circumstances. - Anything that rightfully belongs to the learner and is no longer immediately needed can be off-loaded to one's own PC or Tb backup for safe keeping.

Again, the e-Portfolio should be seen as a flexible and adaptable system. As much as any young adult may change friends or experience the coming and going of different teachers, the e-Portfolio should be flexible enough to adapt to the differing audiences who are permitted to share in the learner's activities. As children steadily mature into adulthood, so too, their affections and loyalties will change and their e-Portfolios should be capable of reflecting that change. It is not so much the opportunity to publicise one's avowed following of a film star, pop-group or football team so much as the fact that the e-Portfolio is capable of reflecting something of one's deeper self image.

The choice of media is so very important. Certainly we should avoid those e-Portfolio systems that are so heavily document-based as to provoke the audience to shout out, "I cannot understand what you are saying for the mass of words you write." The colour schemes, choice of fonts or avatars and the selection of recorded interviews, video-clips or SlideShares one may include will no doubt say more about a person than the text they write.

Buyer Beware

Procurement is a funny old business! However much one warns people to be careful it seems that buyers can so easily be short-changed. I know of an accountant who, against my advice, bought sets of swivel chairs for school use. Yes, you've guessed it, being an accountant she ordered the cheapest that she could find in the catalogues, sight-unseen. Within weeks knobs and wheels were falling off and the sponge padding started coming out of the upholstery - the chairs did not last a year. Slightly more expensive ones would have lasted years longer.

I mention this (true) story because I was reminded of it after recently reading of the frustrations of one teacher and his experiences in acquiring a VLE. Not that I'm surprised. There is a saying 'All salesmen are crooks.' But in the case of VLEs, as an unknown quantity, I can understand buyers not knowing what to ask for. My research some two years ago identified this exact same list of complaints, 'not listening', 'not delivering on time', 'lack of telephone support', etc, etc.

And that is why I am so adamant that educationists in general and certainly ALL teachers should go into the subject of e-Portfolios, knowing what they want and how it will support the sort of curriculum that they want to deliver. Over the last few months I have tried to raise some of the main issues concerning e-Portfolios. If you have any other questions, please contact my support office at www.support@maximise-ict.co.uk

Jamin Lietze in New Zealand has been doing the sort of research that every teacher should be doing, asking questions, pushing the boundaries of his understanding so that he will eventually get what his students deserve. I take my hat off to him. It just seems such a pity that there are so few of us willing to push the boundaries of our thinking beyond what the establishment tells us is good for us!

As for me and eFolio, I am just so proud as to be partnered with an organisation that takes the trouble to listen to what teachers are thinking and can deliver solutions that meet not only curriculum objectives but also I am able to provide students with a tool that they can keep for life.