Upload
others
View
2
Download
0
Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
Choices Choices: A Look into E-Portfolio Software Options
EDCI591 Nov. 20, 07
Dr. Tim Hopper Chris Filler
9908684
eP: Choices Choices
2
Electronic portfolios have a greater potential to alter higher education at its very core than
any other technology application we've known thus far. (Batson, 2002)
Once experimental projects in a few far-flung universities,
e-Portfolios are no longer the “coming thing”… all indicators that a concept or technology
has moved beyond the early adopter stage , have been in place with e-Portfolios for several years.,
The time for wide spread adoption is now. (Visvanathan, 2006)
The Electronic Portfolio (eP) – Definitions
According to a 2003 definition by the National Learning Infrastructure Initiative,
an eP is an electronic portfolio – “a collection of authentic and diverse evidence, drawn
from a larger archive representing what a person or organization has learned over time on
which the person or organization has reflected, and designed for presentation to one or
more audiences for a particular rhetorical purpose” (Barker, 2005).
Referring to portfolios in general, Butler (2006) states that,
Portfolios are a collection of evidence that is gathered together to show a person’s learning journey over time and to demonstrate their abilities. Portfolios can be specific to a particular discipline, or very broadly encompass a person’s lifelong learning. Many different kinds of evidence can be used in a portfolio: samples of writing, both finished and unfinished; photographs; videos; research projects; observations and evaluations of supervisors, mentors and peers; and reflective thinking about all of these. In fact, it is the reflections on the pieces of evidence, the reasons they were chosen and what the portfolio creator learned from them, that are the key aspect to a portfolio. (p.2).
The term eP refers to two separate elements, the digital archive or database, and
the presentation drawn from it to be used for a variety of different purposes. According to
Trent Batson, formerly of Rhode Island University and founding chair of the board for
the Open Source Portfolio, since the mid-90s, the term ‘ePortfolio’ has been used to
eP: Choices Choices
3
describe collections of student work within a web context. He states that the general
meaning of the term eP, “is a dynamic website that interfaces with a database of student
work artefacts” (2002). He differentiates eP’s from webfolios which he states are static
websites that function on HTML links. Therefore, according to Batson, the distinguishing
feature of eP’s is the fact that it is database-driven and dynamic rather than a static,
HTML-driven website.
Jay Visvanathan of Sun Microsystems, makers of Nuventive’s iWebfolio software
defines eP’s as “organized collections of digital information that represent what an
individual has learned over time, how they have reflected on that learning, and how they
choose to present that learning to others” (2006).
Educational consultants FuturEd, based out of Vancouver, define an eP system as
“a system of production by individuals or organizations for reception and use by the
creator, other individuals and organizations, made effective, efficient and electronic
through the use of information and communication technology” (FuturEd, 2004).
Through a recent web search on e-portfolio, it becomes clear that there is no one
single definition for eP’s, just as there is no single use for eP’s either.
Uses of eP
The adoption of eP’s over the last decade or so has come on the heels of an
increase in a reliance and use of technology in all aspects of education
Student work today, be it research papers, presentations, experiments, or group collaborations, is largely being captured in digital, rather than paper form, lending itself well to electronic presentation and organizational tools like e-Portfolios. More importantly, an increasing amount of this content is being created in open, rather than proprietary standards. This increases e-Portfolio's interoperability and virtual life ,while increasing the opportunities for collaboration. (Visvanathan, 2006).
eP: Choices Choices
4
Visvanathan (2006) states that there are essentially 3 main types of eP’s,
‘developmental’, ‘reflective’ and ‘representational’. Where a developmental eP is used
primarily to document the achievements of an owner toward a particular goal, such as the
acquisition of an undergraduate degree, a reflective eP adds the opportunity for the owner
to add personal learning reflections to content. A representational eP is geared towards
providing evidence towards a selected goal, such as getting a job, or demonstrating task
achievement for accreditation purposes. Rather than mutually exclusive, the three main
types can be mixed to meet a variety of institutional and individual needs.
Barrett and Wilkerson (2004) outline two ends of the eP continuum. They look to
work done by Pearl and Leon Paulson (1994) who state that ePs can be broken down into
either positivist or constructivist functions. In a positivist framework, “the purpose of the
portfolio is to assess learning outcomes and those outcomes are, generally, defined
externally. Positivism assumes that meaning is constant across users, contexts, and
purposes… The portfolio is a receptacle for examples of student work used to infer what
and how much learning has occurred.” (p.36). From a constructivist standpoint, the eP
becomes “a learning environment in which the learner constructs meaning. It assumes
that meaning varies across individuals, over time, and with purpose. The portfolio
presents process, a record of the processes associated with learning itself; a summation of
individual portfolios would be too complex for normative description.” (p.36)
Zeichner and Wray (2001) emphasise three different types of portfolios. These are
a ‘learning portfolio’, which acts as documentation of student learning over time; a
‘credential portfolio’, which is designed for accreditation or registration purposes; and a
‘showcase portfolio’, which acts as the students polished finished product.
eP: Choices Choices
5
Similarly, according to Abrami and Barrett (2005), an eP can either be a ‘process
portfolio’ which shows the user's learning journey over time, a ‘showcase portfolio’,
which demonstrates the accomplishments of the student academic or otherwise, and an
‘assessment portfolio’ which is to be used for accreditation or certification purposes.
Smith and Tillema (2003) refer to four different types of portfolio. A portfolio
which is used for employment purposes and whose content is mandated is referred to as a
‘dossier portfolio’. An eP which is also mandated, but used to track learning and
professional development is termed a ‘training portfolio’. An eP which leaves the choice
of content and emphasis up to the student is a ‘reflective portfolio’. Finally, a self-
directed learning and development portfolio is a ‘personal development portfolio’.
While there is a multitude of uses for eP’s, the one constant is that all eP’s, by
their very nature, exist on a digital platform. For those contemplating implementation of
this potentially powerful technology, there are many issues to consider before settling on
just one.
How to Decide Which Software to Use
According to the educational consultants at FuturEd.com there are a few key
questions that every institution should consider before committing to one eP software
package over another. As outlined in their white paper: Consumer Guide to ePortfolio
Tools and Services: Making an Informed Choice, questions are broken down into two
broad categories:
• questions about the eP tools, systems and services, and
• questions about the organization's resources and needs.
eP: Choices Choices
6
Regarding eP tools themselves, the institution should begin by analyzing the track
record of the provider, supplier or producer of eP packages. What is its history and how
long has the particular program been in use? Has it been updated and revised? How
serviceable is it? What about interoperability? Is it flexible enough to accommodate a
variety of users and purposes? How reliable and credible is the provider? What type of
track record does their package have?
According to FuturEd’s Consumer Guide, the nature of the product must also be
considered. For example, is it a product that is being purchased, or is it a service contract?
Is the product software or a web application? How user friendly and easily accessible is
the platform? What equipment is needed on the part of the institution? What about
confidentiality and end product ownership?
The institution must also thoroughly assess what its requirements are in
implementing the eP. What is the intended purpose of the eP? Is it focused on process or
product? Or is it intended to be both? FuturEd outlines other questions related to purpose
such as is its main purpose for presentation of achievements; assessment of programmatic
learning; reflective life long learning, or other forms of institutional evaluation? An
institution should also consider who will be targeted to use the eP and who will be the
intended audience. Other considerations include issues of authenticity of the product, as
well as security of the platform and the amount of staffing needed to administer and
maintain it.
Zeichner and Wray (2001) add the following questions for an institution
considering the implementation of en eP:
• Who decides what should be included in a portfolio: the student compiling the portfolio,
eP: Choices Choices
7
or the people for whom it is being created? How prescriptive should guidelines for
creating a portfolio be (considering the issue of stifling user creativity)?
• How should the pieces of evidence in the portfolio be organised: around themes chosen
by the student, around programme goals, or around achievement standards?
• What kinds of artefacts are acceptable as pieces of evidence? What should, and should
not, be included in the portfolio?
• What kind of input should tutors, lecturers and peers have throughout the process of
constructing the portfolio? Should there be a lot of involvement, or just a little? How
frequently should students be expecting feedback on their progress?
• How should the portfolio be assessed: through very specific evaluation criteria and
grading rubrics, or a more general pass-fail system?
• What should happen to the portfolio after it is finished: should there be some kind of
public acknowledgement or presentation of students’ work?
Clearly there is much to consider when a decision is made to utilize eP’s as an
educational tool on campus. An institution must also consider some of the challenges that
go along with the integration of this technology.
eP: Implementation Challenges
Lorenzo and Ittleson (2005) outline a number of challenges faced by the
institution which decide to proceed with the implementation of a campus-wide eP as part
of its institutional makeup.
• Team – It is critical that institutional buy-in occurs on a campus wide level,
especially from higher administrative levels. The implementation of a campus
eP: Choices Choices
8
wide eP is a labour intensive undertaking and requires full engagement from the
entire team if it is to be successful.
• Staff – Without administrative support in the form of staffing time, the eP may
easily fail to meet its goals. Initialization, start up sessions, and ongoing
maintenance and updates all require a large amount of dedicated staffing hours.
• Diversity of Documentation – Too easily can an eP become nothing more than a
‘digital file cabinet’. The goal should be to provide for diverse elements such as
discussion boards, multimedia presentations and examples of student learning
outcomes. These elements take plenty of time and expertise.
• Representing Student Learning – The development of links to student eP’s and
examples of authentic student learning outcomes is a daunting task.
• Meaningful Aggregation of Information – The sheer size of all the information
that is potentially accrued over the life process of an eP program makes it difficult
to analyze, ensuring meaningful representation and aggregation.
• Multimedia – Although a major benefit of the digital format, it also comes with its
own set of deterrents. Multimedia components are costly and potentially very time
consuming and are therefore important issues to consider.
• Web Site Design – It is important that the website be navigable and user friendly,
especially for accreditation purposes.
• Content Management – Appropriate and effective software designed to organize
and integrate system data in a logical format, including timely upgrades and
regular maintenance is essential.
eP: Choices Choices
9
• Comfort with Technology – The fact that not everybody, including some
members of the accreditation team, are comfortable navigating an eP database.
Wade & Yarbrough (1996) point out that a particularly salient challenge when
implementing an eP requirement is student anxiety. Lack of clarity and historical
examples combined with minimal supervisor led guidelines and support can act to
exacerbate this problem.
Zeichner and Wray (2001) add that a challenge for many institutions is finding
balance in the amount of self-directed learning that takes place. Too much student driven
choice and the result may be watered down and superficial reflections, too prescribed and
the eP process may lose its authenticity.
Smith and Tillema (2003) point out that the time consuming nature of the eP is a
challenge in itself. Often students, new to the process, require lots of support from
supervisors, instructors or technical resource staff. Darling (2001) states that there is a
growing disconnect between the requirement for reflective writing and the students’
ability to do so. This also requires instructor or supervisor time to deal with this
limitation.
According to Zeichner and Wray (2001) there is also a difference of opinion in
the goals of the eP in the first place. Students seem more interested in the final outcome
and see the eP as strictly an aid to acquiring employment, whereas instructors and
administrators believe it to be a tool used for professional development, tracking student
learning outcomes, and program assessment. Smith and Tillema (2003) note that there is
also debate surrounding the act of assessment of the eP. Depending on how prescriptive
eP: Choices Choices
10
the assessment criteria become, they may counteract the creative style and subjective
quality of the eP process.
While there are many challenges that exist for the institution in the creation of a
eP climate on campus, there are many success stories that begin with an idea of using
technology to aid in the teaching and learning in today’s digital world. For as long as
there has been the need for eP’s, there have been software companies eager to meet that
need with innovative eP programs.
eP Software Options
For the purposes of this paper, I will outline three of the more well developed eP
providers, Epsilen, iWebfolio and Open Source Portfolio Initiative (OSPI).(see Appendix
A for a more complete list).
The Epsilen Environment
This software has the potential for involving many students and faculty in the development of online electronic portfolios, which could serve as powerful tools to assess student learning, as well as becoming portable, transferable records of what they have accomplished — a kind of ‘super-resumé’ career-building tool
Dr. Bernie Bopp, University of Toledo (www.epsilen.com) Displayed on the home page of its website, Epsilen boasts to have 8216 members
from 649 member institutions. Epsilen is the brainchild of Dr. Ali Jafari
(http://jafari.iupui.epsilen.com), and the result of 6 years of research and development in
the CyberLab, Purdue School of Engineering and Technology at Indiana University
Purdue University at Indianapolis (IUPUI). Epsilen represents the epitome of next gen
eP’s, eP2.0 technology. As its websites’ name suggests, the Epsilen Environment is more
than just a stand alone eP platform. Rather, it encapsulates an entire suite of software
options. The Epsilen suite includes ePs, Learning Matrix, a Global Learning System
eP: Choices Choices
11
(GLS), Group Collaboration, Object Sharing and Repository, Blogs, WIKI, Messaging,
Resume, Social and Professional Networking, and much more...The eP on its own
becomes a type of lost leader for Epsilen. They advertise that every student registered at
an accredited post secondary institution in the US is eligible to receive a free eP. Epsilen
emphasizes social networking and ePs towards the creation of what it terms “global
eLearning”, creating a new environment for the next generation of eP users. Described by
some users as an “academic Facebook,” Epsilen focuses on connecting its users through
the Epsilen environment and its four pillars, learning, teaching, networking and
collaboration. (www.epsilen.com). According to Jafari, “the Epsilen concept suggests
that every student and professional should own a lifelong ePortfolio enabling them to
collaborate and exchange intellect in a global community.” (NY Times, 2007).
According to the Epsilen website, users of the free account are provided the tools
enabling them to:
• Create and maintain a professional eP
• Engage in professional and social networking
• Showcase scholarly work and other documents in a wide range of formats
• Develop and share resumes
• Store and share files/objects
• Use Epsilen e-mail, blog, wiki, and other communication and
collaboration tools
• Create and participate in professional collaboration groups
• Access to online courses and trainings using the Epsilen Global Learning
System (GLS) courseware.
eP: Choices Choices
12
• Produce a personal eP Web site with profile, photos and video
• Receive an automated weekly Epsilen status report that lets you know
about those that have visited your “corner”, share similar research,
teaching, internship or consulting interests.
However, if the user’s institution purchases an Exploratory Institutional membership
license from Epsilen, beginning at $5,000 USD for a school with a maximum of 2,000
users, then the following services and functions become possible:
• Administrative account to brand, monitor, and maintain internal ePortfolio
accounts of your students ,faculty and alumnae
• Institutional ePortfolio site for your college or university
• Global announcement and message broadcasting to ePortfolio accounts associated
with your institution
• Delivery of 12 online courses or training using Epsilen’s Global Learning System
(GLS), with the option to incorporate New York Times content described below
• Direct access to the Epsilen helpdesk
• A hosted Web-based solution that requires no, or little, institutional IT support
• Ability to upgrade to other licensed services (see below)
• Ability to integrate Epsilen with campus SIS (see below)
• Ability to cross list courses across institutions, departments, and schools
Institutions may also purchase an annual Student Learning Matrix (SLM)
membership, with fees based on user account numbers. The SLM is to be used by
students through an automated learning outcome assessment tool for both summative and
formative learning assessment. Features include:
eP: Choices Choices
13
• Creation of unlimited student learning matrices for program- or campus-level
learning outcome assessment (Each axis includes attributes defined by the
program/campus.)
• Ability for students to upload their learning outcomes according to predefined
rubrics
• Access by faculty and academic advisors to each student learning matrix for
assessment, advisement, and certification
• Program- and campus-level assessment reports for internal and external
accreditation reviews
• A hosted Web-based solution that requires no institutional IT support
Institutions also have the option in joining the Global Learning System (GLS), a
new Web-based learning framework developed as the next generation of eLearning and
networking. Cost is reflective of number of user accounts and courses offered. Epsilen
claims the GLS offers true global learning collaboration by connecting students and
instructors on campuses in the U.S. and around the world in an interactive and intuitive
Web 2.0 learning environment. The GLS features include:
• Global learning management system that enables students and instructors to easily
register or be invited to courses and learning collaboration
• Cross listing of class rosters of two or more courses within various campuses, or
across institutions
• Innovative tools using professional and social networking to enhance learning,
encourage collaboration, and utilize peer review technology
eP: Choices Choices
14
• The ability to easily archive courses and working groups for continued
engagement
• A hosted Web-based solution that requires little, or no institutional IT support
For the institution that wants it all, Epsilen makes it possible with the Charter
membership. Charter members experience the full suite of Epsilen Environment features.
Benefits of charter membership include:
• Single sign-on environment featuring a toolbox of services for ePortfolio, social
networking, Learning Matrix, GLS, object repository, and NYTKnowledge
Network
• Totally hosted turnkey solution with no need for local servers or local technical
staff
• Cost effectiveness for both small and large campuses
• Collaboration on designing the next generation of eLearning through networking
with other members of the Epsilen - New York Times charter council
The September 6th, 2007 edition of the NY Times newspaper included a press
release and a full page ad announcing that Epsilen has partnered with the NY Times to
provide member institutions with unlimited access to the NYTKnowledge Network
which includes access to a repository of archived NY Times dating back to1851 as well
as exclusives such as participating in webcasts with NY Times correspondents and
columnists all with the purpose of adding value to the traditional classroom experience.
Bowling Green State University (BGSU) was one of the first institutions to sign
on with Epsilen. Psychology professor Dr. Milt Hakel was responsible for bringing
Epsilen to BGSU in 2003. Because of it’s partnership with Epsilen, BGSU was awarded
eP: Choices Choices
15
the Council on Higher Education Accreditation's 2007 Award for Institutional Progress in
Student Learning Outcomes. According to Hakel, “Epsilen electronic portfolios for
students combine documentation, reflective self-assessment of those documents, and
evaluation and certification by faculty in a unified framework that shows tangibly what
students can do with their knowledge…students use electronic portfolios as a ready
means to showcase their achievements and discover that reflecting on their work leads to
deeper engagement in learning and higher confidence in being effective performers.”
(http://utnews.utoledo.edu).
Nuventive – iWebfolio “PSU has a strong commitment to teacher education and these programs are required to focus upon many state and national standards. The iWebfolio solution has helped students demonstrate proficiency related to these standards and also serves as a viable model for assessment with practical applications for the students’ future teaching careers… iWebfolio gives learners more freedom within and personalization of their portfolios. It lets them be creative and flexible with their artifacts while simultaneously allowing the structure we have outlined.”
Assistant Professor of Education & Technology Plymouth State University
“I am amazed at the quality of students’ reflections, their ability to self-assess and to connect their self-assessments with concrete goals and objectives.”
Director of Career Development and Advising Northeastern Ohio Universities College of Medicine
“The most valuable aspect I see in iWebfolio is its ease of use. As a reviewer, in a few minutes you can develop templates that provide owners with a framework that allows them to build a well-organized portfolio with a professional look that is easy for you to review and provide feedback in a timely and comprehensive manner. When building portfolios, owners go through a four-step process (collect, select, reflect, present). As an owner, the tool facilitates the collection process by offering guides that can be used to document achievements, competencies, skills, etc. The process of selecting and attaching items for presentation is also very easy, allowing the owner to focus on the critical aspect of portfolio thinking, the reflection.”
Former Coordinator; University-wide ePortfolio Pilot Project University of British Columbia
(A sample of testimonials retrieved from www.nuventive.com).
eP: Choices Choices
16
According to Nuventive, the makers of iWebfolio, their eP software suite, or
“electronic portfolio management system” works to help “individuals organize and
archive work materials – ranging from text documents and presentations to graphics files,
sound clips, video footage, and just about any other document or media format
imaginable”. It is “designed to help students, faculty and staff prepare, manage, reflect,
share and present the results of the student’s academic career as well as co-curricular and
personal experiences” (http://www.nuventive.com).
Founded in 2000, with iWebfolio launched in 2002, its clients number over 150
institutions worldwide. According to Malcolm Hobbs, vice president of marketing and
business development at Sun Microsystems partner Nuventive eP’s are much more than
electronic file cabinets in which to place digital files, providing organization and
perspective to the data. “It's an important distinction,” notes Hobbs. “An individual can
have an unlimited number of portfolios, each representing a different viewpoint of their
life, such as academics, community service,or athletics, or any combination of those
things. It all gets back to the concept of the individual having lifetime control.”
(Visvanathan, 2006).
Nuventive claims that iWebfolio represents “the most configurable electronic
portfolio solution on the market and can be tailored, integrated, and extended without the
time-consuming and costly customization of traditional legacy tools”.
Nuventive seems to have centred its eP package around the notion of lifelong
learning and connections. A graphic on their front page entitled “Life Long Value Chain
for ePortfolio Applications, aptly illustrates this angle.
eP: Choices Choices
17
Nuventive approaches the issue of security with its programs very consciously. It
asks “are your valuable intellectual assets as secure as your financial ones?”
As part of its eP software package, Nuventive has added TracDat, a
comprehensive, institution-wide assessment program. TracDat works seamlessly with
iWebfolio to enable easy assessment of student artefact and reflection samples from
iWebfolio. TracDat is designed to work at a system, department or individual level.
According to Nuventive benefits of TracDat include:
• Systematic approach establishes common understanding and language
eP: Choices Choices
18
• Define and align goals among all levels of the institution
• Document how results are used to improve programs & learning – a key factor in
accreditation
• Develop, review and revise assessment plan from any Web browser
• Easy access to supporting data & evidence
• Embraced by faculty
• Robust reporting – real-time visibility and documentation
• Data stored in a single location for security and accessibility
iWebfolio puts the student back in control of his/her learning. According to its
makers, institutions which choose to purchase Nuventive’s services will develop through
“focusing education back on teaching and learning rather than on test taking”
(Visvanathan, 2006).
eP: Choices Choices
19
Nuventive lists some case studies as testimonials on its website. Each case
exploring how iWebfolio and TracDat have met their needs for a comprehensive eP suite.
In 2003 Northeastern Ohio Universities College of Medicine (NEOUCOM) joined the
Nuventive team, purchasing its license to operate iWebfolio on its campuses. Among the
reasons NEOUCOM decided on iWebfolio was its “ability to collect, organize and share
activities and achievements; educational, professional and personal goals; and reflections
on the learning experience”. Furthermore, NEOUCOM reports that iWebfolio has helped
their students track their learning in a ‘real time’ basis. Implementation of iWebfolio
began in 2004, as a required element of the elective course Gender, Media and Medicine.
Feedback from both students and faculty was positive.
The faculty found that a valuable dialogue was created within iWebfolio through the use of faculty feedback and student reflection. This exchange revealed a level and depth of engagement by the students that was not always manifested in the classroom environment. It also helped to identify course elements that students found especially interesting and highlighted areas that required additional discussion. The curriculum design teams will use this feedback in the evaluation of electronic portfolios as a component in the new medical school curriculum. At NEOUCOM the eP is seen as an opportunity for students to partake in
longitudinal tracking of professional development coupled with managing their progress
toward required curricular outcomes. NEOUCOM has built a goal setting component into
their use of the eP. This collaborative venture relies particularly on the reflective
capabilities of the iWebfolio. “iWebfolio’s strong reflection component enables students
to thoughtfully consider coursework and field experiences, and also provides
considerable insight for faculty about the student’s connection to, and understanding of,
the curriculum content.”
eP: Choices Choices
20
Woodbury University (WU) in Los Angeles, has been using iWebfolio since early
2005. WU was encouraged to create more tools for data collection and use through its
most recent process of accreditation. WU chose to implement an eP in order to help with
this issue, but also to improve program development, as well as helping their students
find employment. According to Steve Dyer, Chief Information Officer at WU, “[w]e
believe that e-Portfolios will give our students a competitive advantage in finding
employment and at the same time allow us to assess the effectiveness of our instruction in
educating the student for lifelong success.”
According to WU one particular challenge was finding a way to convince students
of the value of eP’s when that value was not realized until some time in the future. This
point of view neglects the positive learning that occurs throughout the creation and use of
the eP while still studying.
WU also utilizes the eP as a tool for faculty members, both in their curriculum
development and ongoing assessment of student work and course goals, but also in the
assessment of individual faculty members themselves.
The WU case study also outlines some challenges they experienced in
implementing iWebfolio. On the faculty side, unfamiliar technology and philosophical
issues combined with ‘not having enough time to do yet another thing’ needed to be
overcome. But the WASC accreditation provided the compelling reason for putting the
project on a ‘not if, but when’ footing”. As far as students were concerned, it was not the
familiarity with the technical aspects of the program that became the issue, however, the
major concern coming from students was the perception that the program did not allow
for enough time to complete the required ‘new’ element of the eP. WU seemed to rely on
eP: Choices Choices
21
the narrow eP = job as justification, neglecting the lifelong learning and ongoing
professional development opportunities that are possible. To conclude the case study,
Dyer reiterates the importance top down buy in from the upper echelons of any institution
as critical to the ground swelling needed to make an eP work in a campus setting.
Plymouth State University (PSU) began using iWebfolio in its teacher education
program in 2003. Certification standards were the primary drive behind implementing the
eP software, however, a broader perspective including ongoing assessment and
professional development were also motivators in the decision to adopt iWebfolio as a
learning tool. PSU sees the importance of future teachers being able to pass on the
learning that is possible from this eP to their students. According to Dr. Kenneth Heuser,
Professor in the Faculty of Education
[iWebfolio] will let our students produce portable documentation of their current competencies, and they will be able to add to their portfolios throughout their careers as evidence of their own professional development… It directs the students to address standards that the University thinks are important, and allows the students to thoughtfully reflect upon their courses and field experiences. Students are encouraged to put their own personal stamp on the portfolios by highlighting their unique talents and experiences. We are also using the application to help students demonstrate competency in program strands like diversity, technology, and the differentiated classroom. After comparing several different eP providers, PSU chose iWebfolio for three
reasons. Firstly, it allowed for reflections to occur at multiple levels. Students can reflect
not only at the artefact level, but also at the level of category (competency) and also at the
level of portfolio as a whole. Secondly, iWebfolio has a built in rubric feature for
evaluation, for both the entire eP and also its parts. Thirdly, iWebfolio allows internal and
external reviewers secure access to student content and feedback provided.
eP: Choices Choices
22
Open Source Portfolio Initiative – OSPI
The advantages of this approach speak for themselves. OSP is one of the best-designed content management systems for education that I have seen. Its attention to the user interface means both convenience and high scalability for end users, and the integration with SAKAI connects portfolios to other aspects of online learning. These advantages place OSP far ahead of its competitors, including commercial proprietary software such as WebCT (Byfield, 2006).
OSPI is an evolving group of institutions and individuals collaborating on the
development of a non-proprietary open source electronic portfolio software solution.
OSP was begun in January 2003 as a joint project of the University of Minnesota, the
University of Delaware, and The rSmart Group, a commercial company specializing in
open source applications for education (Byfield, 2006). More recently, the 2.0 release of
2005 was designed by an international, multidisciplinary team to encompass a number of
best practices to provide a rich, flexible and open environment to accommodate a variety
of potential uses. OSPI version 2.0 was funded by a grant of $518,000 from the Mellon
Foundation and matching funds from Indiana University and The rSmart Group.
Portability of the tool was deemed critical and the e-Portfolio infrastructure was
developed using a Sakai-based process using Open Knowledge Initiative (OKI) OsiDs
and IMS standards to enable seamless integration with other applications and services
(Visvanathan, 2006). (see Appendix B for a comparative look at all OSP versions).
OSPI provides portfolio-based activities by creating an environment in
which a person, as a portfolio owner, is able to exhibit their work. Tools which are at a
portfolio owners disposal allow them to collect items that best represent their
accomplishments, their learning, or their work; to reflect upon these artifacts as well as be
eP: Choices Choices
23
in control of the design function of the eP itself and to publish the eP for a designated
audience (Coppola, 2006). OSPI eP’s can be shared in four different ways:
1. published to other OSP users by name or role;
2. published to anyone via email address;
3. published to a publicly accessible URL that can be viewed via web browser;
4. published to removable media such as CD-ROM, DVD or USB.
Bruce Byfield, a computer journalist writing for linux.com, completed a review of
OSPI in 2006. He refers to it as “one of the largest open source projects in academia…a
specialized content management system, comparable to WebCT”. He goes on to list its
main functions “to assist universities in administering Web servers, teachers in preparing
online course components, and both teachers and students in designing and using
portfolios”.
OSP provides tools which allow coordinators of Common Interest Groups (CIG)
or program evaluators and administrators to provide structure and guidance for portfolio
owners regarding eP development. CIG coordinators, evaluators, reviewers and portfolio
guests are able to review published portfolios and provide formal evaluation or informal
feedback and comments. Tools for analysis of eP items, for example a detailed report
function, in aggregate also make it possible for CIG coordinators, administrators or
program evaluators to measure program effectiveness or educational outcomes (Coppola,
2006).
OSP also provides ‘Wizards’ which help eP owners with set up, and performing
other organizational and aesthetic functions relating to the collection of data. The wizards
also facilitate guided reflection activities prompting owners to reflect on possible
eP: Choices Choices
24
connections amongst learning experiences. The ‘Portfolio Studio’ is where the user is free
to design the look of their eP. The user can design a hyperlinked multi-page eP, deciding
on style, layout, and navigation customs, or use pre-determined OSP templates provided.
The ‘Portfolio Studio’ allows the owner complete freedom as to the design and overall
function of their eP at a given time and for a given purpose. The owner can customize
their eP to fit any number of specific situations and audiences.
OSP is an enterprise Java (J2EE) application that runs on a server and is accessed
by users through a Web browser such as Mozilla Firefox. The latest version of OSP is
built on the Sakai framework which provides institutions with a common set of software
services for teaching, learning, research, and collaborative project work (Coppola, 2006).
OSP is a volunteer-driven organization. There is no paid development staff, only the
contributions of organizations such as the Carnegie Foundation for the Advancement of
Teaching, DePaul University, George Mason University, Indiana University, Portland
State University, The rSmart Group, Syracuse University, University of Amsterdam,
University of Minnesota Duluth, University of Washington, and Virginia Tech (Coppola,
2006). OSP claims to have more than 100 universities and other educational institutions
as registered contributors and users. A core group of 15-20 programmers representing
about a dozen institutions work on the project on a continual basis (Byfield, 2006).
OSPI was created to respond to the need for educational resources which support
both the individual and the institution. The OSPI eP is primarily designed for the
individual owner, however, the support and organizational framework come directly from
the institution. Coppola provides a list of OSPI objectives:
eP: Choices Choices
25
• Establish an environment that enables an individual to present and reflect upon original, authored work in a manner that facilitates multiple modes of learning, is readily accessed and easy to use • Provide means for individuals to discover and articulate relationships within and between their works within a collection and to discover patterns within those relationships that help them make sense of the whole. • Enable owners to control the visual and navigational design of a portfolio of authored work • Protect the intellectual and personal property rights of individuals who present work through the software • Provide quality information about learning outcomes and rubrics to individual portfolio owners, course instructors, degree program administrators, and institutional administrators • Provide access at the institutional, departmental, and course level to assessment data crucial to evaluating the strengths and weaknesses of efforts to promote learning and participation in the credentialing and accreditation processes • Provide information to learners and teachers seeking to understand the learning process • Provide a tool for faculty and staff development, as well as the hiring, promotion, and tenure processes • Offer default components based on best practices for gathering content, managing workflow, and presenting content for a variety of professional uses • Enable collaboration and exchange of ideas among members of a portfolio community in response to presentation of work • Provide for seamless lateral movement of content between institutional departments, as a transition between roles within an institution, and in moving between institutions, and in managing relationships with multiple institutions simultaneously • Provide an environment built in accordance with national and international standards • Interoperate with human resource, student information, course management, learning management, and other enterprise-wide systems • Provide an environment for students to display their work to potential employers One of the biggest changes in the 2.0 version of OSPI has been the amalgamation
with SAKAI. In order to enhance its collaborative capabilities, OSPI has partnered with
the SAKAI Project. The SAKAI Project (named after iron chef Hiroyuki Sakai in
response to University of Michigan’s CHEF program - CompreHensive collaborativE
Framework) is run by the SAKAI Foundation which is made up of a consortium of
international institutions, namely universities, with the goal of managing and distributing
open source teaching and learning software towards the creation of a Common Learning
Environment (CLE). Originally funded by the Mellon Foundation, SAKAI is a member-
eP: Choices Choices
26
based, non-profit corporation. SAKAI common source software includes common course
management tools such as wikis, email, on line testing, RSS reader, grading report,
discussion thread, and chat function. SAKAI works to increase collaboration between
individuals, institutions and organizations through the promotion and continual
advancement of community-source and open standards approaches to teaching and
learning software solutions (www.sakaiproject.org). Students can take advantage of such
tools as an online scheduler that can print to PDF, a Learning Matrix that records the
status of activities in different classes or groups, a drop box accessible only to them and
their teachers, and a résumé-building tool (Byfield, 2006).
OSPI with its focus on collaboration highlighted by the partnership with the
SAKAI Project is leading the way in terms of accessible, comprehensive and connected
eP software on the market today.
Conclusion
Similar to purchasing any big ticket item, there is a need to do proper and
thorough research into the products available to ensure the right fit. Selecting which eP is
right for a given institution is no exception. It is critical to fully comprehend not only
what the eP software is capable of doing, but also equally important in first determining
exactly what purpose the eP will serve at the institution. Another option, one which was
not discussed in this paper, but one which some institutions are choosing, is the option of
not going with any of the pre-packaged software suites, and instead developing their own
program as a custom eP component.
eP: Choices Choices
27
Appendix A E-Portfolio Software Options
• Avenet's efolio
• Chalk and Wire
• Folio by ePortaro
• Myportfolio
• FolioLive – McGraw Hill
• WebFolio Builder – TaskStream
• College Live Text
• Connecticut Distance Learning Consortium
• True Outcomes
• Masterfile ePortfolio Manager – Concord
• Angel Portfolio – Angel Learning
• Blackboard CMS
• TK-20
eP: Choices Choices
28
eP: Choices Choices
29
eP: Choices Choices
30
eP: Choices Choices
31
eP: Choices Choices
32
Coppola, C. (2006). Understanding the open source portfolio, version 2.1, 2.2 Retrieved
Nov. 14th, 2007, http://bugs.sakaiproject.org/confluence/download/attachments/22304/understandingOSP-October2006.pdf?version=1
eP: Choices Choices
33
References Abrami, P. C., & Barrett, H. (2005). Directions for research and development on
electronic portfolios. Canadian Journal of Learning and Technology, 31(3), online version.
Barker, K. (2005). EPortfolio for the assessment of learning. Retrieved Oct. 3rd, 2007,
http://www.futured.com/documents/FuturEdePortfolioforAssessmentWhitePaper_000.pdf.
Barrett, H. & Wilkerson, J. (2004) Conflicting paradigms in electronic portfolio
approaches. Retrieved Oct. 30th, 2007, http://electronicportfolios.org/systems/paradigms.html
Batson.T (2002).Electronic Portfolio Boom: What’s it all about? Syllabus. retrieved
sept 10, 2007, http://www.campus-technology.com/article.asp?id=6984 Butler, P. (2006). A review of the literature on portfolios and electronic portfolios.
Retrieved Nov. 7th, 2007, https://eduforge.org/docman/view.php/176/1111/ePortfolio%20Project%20Research%20Report.pdf
Byfield, B. (2006). Review: The open source porfolio initiative. Retrieved, Oct. 29th,
2007, http://www.linux.com/articles/51797?tid=13. Coppola, C. (2006). Understanding the open source portfolio, version 2.1, 2.2 Retrieved
Nov. 14th, 2007, http://bugs.sakaiproject.org/confluence/download/attachments/22304/understandingOSP-October2006.pdf?version=1
Darling, L. F. (2001). Portfolio as practice: The narratives of emerging teachers. Teaching and Teacher Education, 17(1), 107-121.
FuturEd (2004). Guide to ePortfolio Tools and Services: Making an Informed Choice.
Retrieved Oct. 30th, 2007, http://futured.com.
NY Times. (2007). The New York Times Introduces an Online Complement to College
and University Courses, Providing Enhanced Classroom and Distance Learning,
Retrieved Nov. 11th, 2007, http://phx.corporate-ir.net/phoenix.zhtml?c=105317&p=irol-pressArticle&ID=1048818&highlight=
Paulson, F.L. & Paulson, P. (1994). Assessing Portfolios Using the Constructivist Paradigm in Fogarty, R. (ed.) (1996) Student Portfolios. Palatine: IRI Skylight Training & Publishing.
eP: Choices Choices
34
Smith, K., & Tillema, H. (2003). Clarifying different types of portfolio use. Assessment
and Evaluation in Higher Education, 28(6), 625-648.
Visvanathan, J (2006). E-Portfolios in education: The time is now! Retrieved Sept. 20th, 2007, http://www.nuventive.com/white_papers/ePortfoliosJVbyline.pdf.
Wade, R. C., & Yarbrough, D. B. (1996). Portfolios: A tool for reflective thinking in teacher education? Teaching and Teacher Education, 12(1), 63-79.
Zeichner, K., & Wray, S. (2001). The teaching portfolio in US teacher education programs: What we know and what we need to know. Teaching and Teacher
Education, 17(5), 613-621.