Towards Integral Portfolio Services

Darren CambridgeAlt-I-Lab

Sheffield, EnglandJune 22, 2005

Approach

• From the perspective of US pedagogical practice and research on individual use

• Collective envisioning of future services, rather than description of existing services

• Theory and research informs technology

Overview

1. US background and context2. Definitions3. Research and examples4. Specifications and standards

1. Background and Context

• Disciplinary roots– Rhetoric and Composition (Writing)– Education

• Widespread use of portfolios since at least the early 1980s

• Moving to electronic since mid-1990s

Purposes

• Self-authorship– Dealing with rapid change through understanding and directing learning

• Self-representation– Participating in communities of practice

– Providing evidence of learning• US pedagogy: achieving self-authorship through self-representation

Key Challenge: Coherence

• 58% of US higher education students attend more than one undergraduate institution

• Lifewide: increased evidence of importance of co-curricular, extra-curricular and informal learning

• Lifelong: need to continue learning after and between participation in formal education

2. Defining Features

• Digital Composition • Learning through• Reflective in an Integrative Context

• Venue

Digital Composition

• An ePortfolio is a digital composition – A message in a rhetorical situation– The product of the author’s agency – Integral

•Not just a repository•Arrangement and design matter•Explains and predicts

Learning Through

• Does not simply document past and inform future learning

• Portfolio learning occurs through the composition process

Integrative Reflection

• Not just a collection of reflections on learning

• Reflection on the artifacts of learning collected for use on the portfolio

• Makes meaning of the artifacts in relationship to other artifacts on the context of the larger narrative

Venue

• The “place” where portfolio authors and audiences interact around portfolios

• Not part of the portfolio, but essential to it

• Electronic portfolios can be composed and read in more sophisticated venues

• Providing a venue is a primary function of portfolio technology

Qualities of Powerful Venues

• Expressiveness– Range of modes of expression– Degree of control over reader’s experience

• Connectivity– Variety and bandwidth of connections to audiences

• Remixability– How easily can artifacts and relationships be repurposed and recombined

Better Venues Through Services

• 5 min: Brainstorm ePortfolio services that support – Expressiveness,– Connectivity, or– Remixability.

• 10 min: Discuss with a partner. Share favorite with whole group.

3. Research

• Examples from the National Coalition on Electronic Portfolio Research

• eFolio Minnesota Research

Linking Thinking

• Brain Werner’s individualized major portfolio at St. Olaf

• Communicates the coherence of his education

• Rich internal and external linking enacts integration

• Multiple organizations shows complexity of understanding

• http://www.stolaf.edu/depts/cis/wp/wernerb/

Mapping Learning Careers

• Brian’s learning career at Stanford

• Folio thinking enacted through concept mapping

• http://scil.stanford.edu/research/learningcareers/capstones/brian/LOB_index.html

Designing Identity

• Sandrina Roy’s advertising internship portfolio

• Professional identity enacted and communicated through visual and interaction design

• http://mason.gmu.edu/~sray/experience%202004/index.htm

eFolio Minnesota

• A project of the Minnesota State Colleges and Universities system (MnSCU)

• Launched Fall 2003• Available to all residents of Minnesota

• 30,000 active users as of April 2005 with linear growth

• Planned interoperability with Open Source Portfolio at University of Minnesota

Individual Focus

• Focus on individual use for lifelong and lifewide learning

• Minimal centralized control • Software and documentation encourages broad range of uses

• Research to see what works for individuals, then do more of that

Research Results

• Age not a factor• High level of use across all six categories of use

• Educational planning central• Frequent role shifts • Little perceived impact of institutional support

Factors Influencing Level of Impact

• Audience– Real

• Evidence of reading and response

– Imagined: • Clear intended audience(s) • Being “out there”

• Integrity– Integration of personal and professional

– Layers– Currency

Ways Institutional Support Matters

• Audience– Technology’s impact of findability, connectivity

– Collaborative contexts of portfolio authorship

• Integrity– Scaffolding that embraces lifelong and lifewide learning

– Technology that supports user adaptation

Layers

“I tried to organize it since everyone would have a different purpose to have a look at the site, and if I were showing it to my cousin in California, just saying "Hey, this is what I'm doing with my life," opposed to someone I'm applying to get a position for, try to organize it so different mediums would be able to find their way around for their specific needs.” - Heatherhttp://heatherdawson.efoliomn.com/

Being Out There

“There are certain … aspects that I don't feel the need to share with everybody, but … just as you create a resume for public distribution, you choose the pieces that you feel most accurately and positively reflect your human being, and so I selected things that I felt demonstrated my values and shed a positive light on me in a public way.” -Tracyhttp://tracywright.efoliomn2.com/

Services for Audience and Integrity

Audience

• Heuristics • Expectations• Findability • Response• Usage• Accessibility

Integrity

• Context• Linking• Synchronization• Models• Paths

Services for Audience and Integrity

• 5 min: Review and expand your list. Which services support audience? Integrity?

• 15 min: In groups of 3-5, develop a list of key services to support audience and key services to support accessibility. Share with whole group.

4. Standards and Specifications

• eLearning specifications– IMS ePortfolio– IMS Tool Portability

• Social software specifications– RSS, Atom – Friend of a Friend (FOAF) – Social software APIs

IMS ePortfolio

• Final version 1.0 approved by IMS Technical Advisory Board June 20, 2005

• Captures the essential elements of an ePortfolio discussed earlier

• Accommodates diverse purposes• Complicated • Will require development of application profiles

Scope

• Focus on portability of portfolios as integral wholes

• Services out of scope• Integrates and expands on existing specifications

• XML binding • Revisions anticipated based on evidence from actual practice

Components of a Portfolio

• A collection of heterogeneous parts • Associated with an owner• A set of relationships between the parts

• Views – Selections of parts and relationships for a purpose

• Presentations– Instructions on how an audience experiences a view

Portfolio PartActivity Competency Goal Product

Accessibility

FROM LIP ….. etc

ACCLIP

New Assertion Reflexion

Participation (Data model in binding – based on Enterprise Services Group)

Rubric Rubric Cell (uses RDCEO)

Finally Other

LIP:Relationship

Relationship Types

• Basics– shows-up– Supplements– Supports– precedes

• Assessments and Evidence– Attests– Evaluates– Evidences

• Commentary– reflects-on

• Showcasing– Presents

• Motivation– aims-at

(Categorization by CETIS)

Packaging

• Uses Organisation/Title to identify resources for– Views– Presentations– Owners– Relationships– portfolioParts

Packaging Example

Naming Convention for content-types

Title

Implementing IMS ePortfolio

• Chris Arnett, Open Source Portfolio Initiative

IMS Tool Interoperability

• Enables use of external tools and services within a learning environment

• Simple demonstrator at Alt-I-Lab 2005

• Initial release Fall 2005 • ePortfolio community should generate requirements for further development

Social Software Specifications

• Lightweight and flexible • Excellent support for

– Atomization– Distribution– Aggregation

• Little support for– Synthesis– Contextualization

From Scott Wilson’s workbloghttp://www.cetis.ac.uk/members/scott/blogview?entry=20050603020705

Sharing Goals Through 43 Things

• Easy to share goals to and from a portfolio using RSS and 43 Things API

• Such sharing divorces the shared goal from its relationships to other objects and the portfolio as an integral whole

• Portfolio services must contextualize information within synthesized composition

• http://www.43things.com/

Integrative Portfolio Services

• 10 min: Write about how ePortfolio services can engage distributed content and activities while maintaining a strong connection to the synthesized whole:– How much context needs to be shared? – How might eLearning and social software specifications be used in concert?

• 10 min: Discuss with a partner• 10 min: Whole group discussion