Now whilst I'm personally quite keen to see e-portfolios play their part in helping to progress what we currently call e-learning, we ought to consider what some of the issues are before rushing to develop, or implement, what, on first impression, may appear to be attractive e-portfolio solutions, either bought 'off the shelf' or custom developed for a specific context. The following is all a bit 'stream of consciousness' stuff full of more questions than answers, but some readers might find it useful. I don't know the answers I just pose the questions:)
Some of the current offerings in the e-portfolio field may well be functionally impressive, but are we in danger in creating yet another genre which locks data, information and other content into monolithic architectures? Keep in mind that, from a commercial perspective, it makes sense for a vendor to lock a client into one system because that guarantee's a stream of recurring income.
Are e-portfolios in danger of going down the first generation VLE route? Indeed, are some e-portfolio systems already so sophisticated that they are becoming, or are being used as, de facto VLEs? Does this matter?
E-Portfolios are not wordprocessors. E-Portfolios are not a single concept. Can a single e-portfolio design, no matter how sophisticated, ever be relevant to all levels, contexts and pedagogical expectations/requirements? For example, is it feasible to apply a medical school e-portfolio model to say a chemistry department; or would the amount of adjustment/customization required be too great?
Let's say that it's possible to develop a really flexible e-portfolio engine based on a component architecture and which can be implemented in many contexts. The challenge here will be to balance flexiblity with usability.
We can add a whole raft of other “ity's” to the e-portfolio design and evaluation mix, e.g. scalability, adaptability, portability, affordability, durability, sharability, securability.
To be successful, do centrally driven initiatives like lifelong learning or the UK's Progress File assume, or require, a 'cradle to grave' homogeneity that doesn't, and may never, exist? Alternatively, is higher education really so diverse and 'special' that it will confound any cradle to grave technical solution? Is it really going to be possible to achieve a seamless sharing and transfer of data and information between the worlds of work and all levels of learning?
Meanwhile over at the IMS global consortium we find an acceptance of heterogeneity with interoperability postulated as the solution:
“The specification will enable the portability of ePortfolios between ePortfolio tools and systems using existing specifications and standards. You may view the collected use cases. This effort is expected to be completed in mid 2004.”
On the digital preservation front, it's going to be pretty important that the content of any e-portfolio doesn't end up trapped in some obsolete technical purgatory which was once state-of-the-art but within a decade or two no one has the required hardware or software which can make sense of it. Also, it's going to be no fun to find that the medium on which the e-portfolio is stored isn't as durable as expected after multiple reads and writes. In the digital world 'lots of copies keeps stuff safe' is best, but then of course we also have data, privacy and human rights legislation to consider … now we're really getting into complex and unpredictable territory.
Who owns an e-portfolio? The IMS global consortium stance appears to be that:
“It is the responsibility of the Learner Information server to allow the owner of the learner information to define what part of the learner information can be shared with other systems.”
We can't assume that the learner is necessarily the owner of the information in an e-portfolio particularly where the content of the portfolio is part of a formal assessment process.
In such a context there may not be the facility or opportunity for the student to decide who they will share their collection of artefacts and reflections with; the system assumes that it 'owns' their inputs and decides who they will share with.
Where then the seductive concept of the owner being the student (or former student) who carries around some derivative of a flash-drive or smartcard which at a stroke displays the wonderful panoply of artefacts, reflections and other 'evidence' of learning they have developed over the years and which then grants them access to the next set of learning opportunities/experiences or employment?
It's obviously better when students 'buy-in' to the concept of e-portfolios because they want to rather than 'have' to. The quality of reflection in an e-portfolio is not going to be enhanced if students feel their privacy in compromised and their inputs may be opened to a level of peer or public exposure over which they have no control and to which they did not agree. Again, the degree of student control is perhaps related to the part that e-portfolio plays in formal assessment processes.
The introduction of e-portfolios into, particularly, a higher educational context may sometimes be perceived as a threat, not an opportunity. Some institutions may find it difficult, or be unwilling, to fully realize the pedagogical potential of e-portfolios if it does not fit with their traditions or beliefs. Also, what if e-portfolios are perceived as having the potential for adding to an already considerable faculty workload? In such contexts the e-portfolio may be consigned to a role as no more than a personal student repository with no input, comment, assessment or evaluation expected from faculty. Even though some may argue that this is a distortion of the e-portfolio vision, are there still benefits to be gained from such, apparently, poorly embedded contexts?
Are we doing to reinvent the wheel by ignoring solutions which may have been developed for other purposes but which could have considerable relevance to e-portfolio development? One obvious example here is the weblog which have many features of potential benefit to e-portfolio development, e.g.
- chronology, narration and comments are the raison d'être of the weblog
- publication, editing, and commenting are as easy as it gets
- trackback provides a mechanism for tracking reference and reuse
- integral search and categorization facilities
- automated archiving
- syndication (incoming and outgoing)
- discreet addressability of information objects
Finally, please allow me to rattle the bars of the cage a little. Ok, let's say we're keen to see our students value and use e-portfolios. Or, let's say we've developed an educational programme that 'requires' them to use e-portfolios.
Comfortable?
Are you prepared to practice what you preach? Will you keep your own e-portfolio and allow, say, your mentor, manager, supervisor, or peers, to view and make judgements on the quality of your entries? Better still, let's build it into your annual appraisal!
Still comfortable?
