Bbohlinger_eportfolio Case Studies

Electronic Portfolio case studies provide significant clues as to whether which user groups benefit the most of ePortfolio system implementations and they also cast light on the widespread belief that students seem to be most interested in the ways ePortfolios can flesh out their résumés, both before and after graduation (Batson, 2002). No doubt, at an institutional level these systems are useful in management, assessment and reviews of student coursework as well as programme development. Yet, there are areas where ePortfolio systems seem not to capture the needs of potential employers and it seems more work needs to be done in order to reflect skills acquired in affinitive spaces and informal learning practices. This brief summary does not attempt to provide answers but aims to raise questions.

The [UK] Assurance Agency (QAA) defines PDP as “a structured and supported process undertaken by an individual to reflect upon their own learning, performance and/or achievement and to plan for their personal, educational and career development.” Ideally, an ePortfolio would help a range of users to identity and manage learning progress: the learner her/himself, potential colleagues and employers, teachers/lecturers, administrators, course/programme managers in educational institutions. In 2004, David Ford et al. published their discussion of findings in relation to the implementation of an ePortfolio system in Nottingham. The City of Nottingham’s Passport system operates in local schools and is connected to the University of Nottingham’s ePARs system, they are supposed to help making the transition between stages of education easier. This involves the individual learner’s personal targets, the development of their CV as well as administrative processing of admission requests and record-keeping of academic progress. The target group consists of young people from the age of 11 and covers those up into the stage where they are progressing towards their first career post -secondary education. Positive outcomes were registered in so far as users noticed motivational effects and an increase in self-esteem and confidence due to enhanced self-management and self-review skills. The implementation of the system was beneficial to educational institutions whose planning and admission processes could be improved due to data sharing among each other. Teachers and lecturers benefited in relation to standardisation of assessment, handling of timetables and bookings of tutorials. Key limitations related to restricted functionality, data storage and security, data transferability and data access rights – catering the future socially mobile and flexible work force that may have more than one career in a globalised world seemed to be an ambitious goal. Batson (2002) had recognised that interoperability in an ever more dynamic and constantly updated and interconnected world would

1 Britta Bohlinger- 09/2009 http://britbohlinger.wordpress.com

require non-static systems to reflect students’ progress and allow them to aggregate their pieces of work. As Jafari (2004) rightly pointed out: ePortfolio systems need to stick for a lifetime and they need to offer solutions for technical and licensing difficulties across institutional boundaries, including the networking between alumni as well as accessibility to employers in various industries. Taking into account what current data sharing sites enable users to represent and share across various platforms and with all kinds of audiences, whether in private or public settings, including the aggregation of digital products and skills, ePortfolios come across as very web 1.0-driven. The key question is whether ePortfolios will be able to keep pace with the technological development and the rapidly changing practices in online spaces. Also, will they sufficiently take into account that employers are still not overly enthusiastic by the prospect to be presented with pieces of work that were not compiled for purposes related to their needs but academic assessment, possibly even some years ago?

References Batson, T. (2002) ‘The electronic portfolio boom: what’s it all about?’ [online] Campus Technology. Available from: http://campustechnology.com/articles/2002/11/theelectronic-portfolio-boom-whats-itall-about.aspx [10 September 2009] Jafari, A. (2004) ‘The “sticky” e-portfolio system: tackling challenges and identifying attributes’ (online), Educause Review, vol. 39, no. 4 (July/August), pp. 38–49. Available from http://www.educause.edu/ir/library/pdf/erm0442.pdf [10 September 2009] QAA (2001) ‘Guidelines for HE Progress Files’ [online] Quality Assurance Agency for Higher Education. Available from http://www.qaa.ac.uk/academicinfrastructure/progressFiles/guidelines/progfile2001.asp [10September] Ford, D., Harley, P. and Smallwood, A. (2004) ‘Integrating an eportfolio within a university and the wider community’ [online], workshop presentation, EIfEL ePortfolio conference, La Rochelle, October 2004, University of Nottingham. Available from http://www.nottingham.ac.uk/eportfolio/specifyinganeportfolio/keydocuments/LaRochelle Paper.doc [10 September 2009]

2 Britta Bohlinger- 09/2009 http://britbohlinger.wordpress.com