ePortfolios

Get Started. It's Free
or sign up with your email address
Rocket clouds
ePortfolios by Mind Map: ePortfolios

1. Examples

1.1. ePortfolio.org

1.2. Mahara.com

1.3. Open Source Portfolio - Sakai Project

1.3.1. Developed with 6 priorities

1.3.1.1. Usability and Customization

1.3.1.2. Assessment and Accreditation

1.3.1.3. Integration Interfaces

1.3.1.4. Scholarship of teaching and learning

1.3.1.5. Templates

1.3.1.6. Portability

1.4. General information found online. Shows examples

1.5. eFolio - Minnesota

1.5.1. available to all residents, intended for students and teachers, implemented state wide

1.6. Chalk & Wire

1.6.1. Miami University example

1.6.1.1. implimented an innovated evaluation system, without GPAs

1.6.1.1.1. C&W supported eportfolios as outcome measures

1.6.1.2. constructivist approach, very innovative

1.6.2. almost LMS in nature

1.6.2.1. portfolio creation

1.6.2.2. assessment and feedback built in

1.6.2.2.1. has tools for flexible criteria

1.6.2.3. surveys and forms

1.6.2.4. reporting and analytics

1.6.2.5. collaborative tools

1.6.2.5.1. self-contained, not interoperable

1.6.2.6. administrative flexibility

1.7. Digication

1.8. WordPress

1.8.1. technically a blogging tool

1.8.1.1. free opensource

1.8.1.1.1. student as designer

1.8.1.1.2. formative assessment in terms of peer feedback, or tags

1.8.1.1.3. summative in nature if teacher scaffolded task - depends on user objective or learning objective

1.8.1.1.4. useful for collecting and reflecting and

1.8.1.2. cognitive tool in terms of organization

1.8.1.2.1. high cognitive load

2. Articles

2.1. Abram 2005 - Directions for Research and Development on Electronic Portfolios

2.1.1. types and characteristics

2.1.1.1. process

2.1.1.1.1. 5 stages

2.1.1.2. showcase

2.1.1.3. assessment

2.1.1.3.1. particularly useful for formative assessment

2.1.1.3.2. "authentic assessment of competencies"

2.1.1.3.3. may include templates, rubrics, or benchmarks

2.1.1.3.4. can be flexible

2.1.1.3.5. experience, over credentials

2.1.1.3.6. "authentic assessment"

2.1.1.3.7. difficulties

2.1.1.3.8. collaborative possibilities

2.1.1.3.9. skill development through creation

2.1.1.3.10. flexibility in content to be included

2.1.1.3.11. better crosses cultural and linguistic barriers

2.1.1.3.12. can document informal learning

2.1.2. outcomes and processes that EPs support

2.1.2.1. advantages over paper Ps

2.1.2.1.1. multimedia, may demonstrate more authentic skills

2.1.2.1.2. better at cataloguing and sorting

2.1.2.1.3. better for sharing and interacting

2.1.2.2. advantages of use

2.1.2.2.1. develop higher level cognitive skills

2.1.2.2.2. development of cross-curricular skills

2.1.2.2.3. meta-cognitive awareness

2.1.2.2.4. enhances self-regulation

2.1.2.2.5. enhances independence

2.1.2.2.6. engages learners in the evaluation process

2.1.2.2.7. enhanced sense of responsibility for learning

2.1.2.2.8. enhanced motivational, affective, and attitudinal outcomes

2.1.2.2.9. noted dearth of empirical evidence

2.1.2.2.10. processes ePs supports

2.1.3. context for effective use?

2.1.3.1. may be more useful for some populations/situations than others

2.1.4. who are the users/viewers, and how is appropriate use of ePs encouraged?

2.1.4.1. students, educators, employers

2.1.4.2. family and others, without formal responsibility

2.1.4.3. how to design for willing and strategic use?

2.1.4.4. what are the implications for teachers?

2.1.4.4.1. numerous questions listed

2.1.4.5. what sorts of top down support is needed?

2.1.5. technical/administrative issues?

2.1.6. evidence of EP success

2.1.6.1. scalability (widespread use)

2.1.6.2. satisfaction

2.1.6.2.1. including long term use

2.1.6.3. cost-benefit worthiness

2.1.6.4. learning gains and personal use

2.1.6.5. successful job or advancement gains

2.1.7. advancing with funding/infrastructure

2.2. Information from Athabasca University on ePortfolios

2.3. Helen Barrett article annotated

2.3.1. Theoretical Comments

2.3.1.1. constructivist orientation?

2.3.1.1.1. particularly as "process"

2.3.1.1.2. student directed content and learning

2.3.1.1.3. outcomes are multifaceted and rich

2.3.1.1.4. emphasis on process as well as outcomes

2.3.2. expressive vs. structured

2.3.2.1. expressive

2.3.2.1.1. constructivist emphasis

2.3.2.2. structured

2.3.2.2.1. facilitates evaluative analysis

2.3.3. tech advantages

2.3.3.1. in reflection

2.3.3.1.1. can capture immediate reflection

2.3.3.1.2. capture summative reflection

2.3.3.2. evaluative analysis

2.3.3.2.1. hyperlinking to connect expressive with structured demonstrations

2.3.4. motivation

2.3.4.1. autonomy

2.3.4.1.1. mirrors social networks?

2.3.4.2. mastery

2.3.4.2.1. showcasing

2.3.4.2.2. sharing expertise

2.3.4.3. purpose

2.3.4.3.1. having purpose engages motivation

2.3.4.3.2. personal development as purpose

2.3.5. 3 level process

2.3.5.1. 1) Portfolio as Collection/Storage

2.3.5.2. 2) Portfolio as Workspace/Process

2.3.5.3. 3) Portfolio as Showcase/Product

2.3.5.3.1. thematic organization

2.3.6. EPs and standardization

2.4. Consideration factors and adoption of type, tabulation and framework for creating e-portfolios

2.5. Clark 2009 - eportfolios at 2.0: surveying the field

2.5.1. 4 reasons driving ePortfolio use

2.5.1.1. growing interest in student-centred learning

2.5.1.2. dynamism of digital technology

2.5.1.3. pressure for increased accountability

2.5.1.4. increased fluidity of employment and education

2.5.2. ePortfolio movement

2.5.2.1. widespread use, though inconsistent

2.5.2.2. hotspots include Minnesota, Universities, such as Penn state and SF state U

2.5.3. ePs and assessment

2.5.3.1. prompted by Bush-era reforms

2.5.3.2. assessment is tech driven

2.5.3.3. ePortfolios lacks a coherent "field"

2.5.3.4. evidence of origin for eP standards

2.5.3.4.1. New node

2.5.4. Moving Forward

2.5.4.1. 3 key factors shaping it's future growth

2.5.4.1.1. effects of web 2.0 and social networking

2.5.4.1.2. persistent conflict between assessment and learner orientation

2.5.4.1.3. implications for international growth

2.6. Zhang 2007 - Designing ePortfolio 2.0

2.6.1. emphasizes constructivist approach

2.6.1.1. reference to communities of practice

2.6.1.2. learning as a social transaction

2.6.1.3. web 2.0 allows for social transactions within and around the portfolio

2.6.2. survey

2.6.2.1. important for use

2.6.2.1.1. collaboration with peers, profs, & colleauges

2.6.2.1.2. customization

2.6.2.1.3. ease in design

2.6.2.1.4. reflect on learning achievements, strengths, gaps

2.6.2.2. barriers

2.6.2.2.1. lack of connection (relevance to coursework or other material)

2.6.2.2.2. time consuming

2.6.2.2.3. inability to find appropriate software or applications

2.6.3. proposed ePortfolio 2.0 system

2.6.3.1. ease of use and flexibility

2.6.3.2. knowledge sharing

2.6.3.3. community wide reflection and interaction

2.6.3.4. knowledge collaboration

2.6.4. tools

2.6.4.1. blogs

2.6.4.2. wikis

2.6.4.3. RSS

2.6.4.4. Podcasts

2.6.4.4.1. note: they can technically be any type of file

2.6.4.5. Social bookmarking

2.6.5. conceptual model

2.6.6. interoperability is key

2.6.6.1. blogging from within ePortfolio applications

2.6.6.2. tagging and metadata that can interact with blogs, etc.

2.6.6.3. interconnection of comments and social interaction

2.6.6.4. RSS syndication for publication and enhancing interaction

2.6.6.4.1. ex. rss feed of comments left

2.6.7. challenges

2.6.7.1. assessment

2.6.7.2. building a community to contribution

2.7. Cambridge 2008 - The Impact of the Open Source Portfolio on Learning and Assessment

2.8. Peet 2011 - Fostering Integrative Knowledge through ePortfolios

2.8.1. 6 dimensions of integrative knowledge and learning

2.8.1.1. identify, demonstrate, and adapt knowledge gains across contexts

2.8.1.2. adapt to differences across people and situations to in order to create solutions

2.8.1.3. understand and direct oneself as a learner

2.8.1.4. become a reflexive, accountable, and relational learner

2.8.1.5. identify and discern one's own and others perspectives

2.8.1.6. develop a professional digital identity

2.8.2. image attached showing a model of these 6 dimensions

2.8.3. 3 key components of the definition of integrative knowledge

2.8.3.1. becoming an intentional and reflexive learner

2.8.3.2. having a process orientation towards knowledge and learning

2.8.3.3. working with others to address social issues

2.9. Mentkowski 2011 - Conceptualizing and Assessing Integrative and Applied Learning-In-Use

2.9.1. knowing and doing are intimately connected

2.9.1.1. situated cognition!

2.9.2. integration and application come together in performance

2.9.2.1. situated cognition!

2.9.3. performance develops in an integrated liberal arts and professions education

2.9.3.1. assessed through abilities

2.9.4. Learning to Performance involves Learning to Transfer

2.9.4.1. Holyoak's idea of "adaptive expertise"

2.9.5. Reflection and Self-Assessment

3. Presentation

3.1. State Learning Outcomes

3.2. Overview

3.3. Give Overview on articles

3.3.1. eFolio Minnesota

3.3.1.1. 6 points!

3.4. Break into groups

3.4.1. discussion questions for eFolio Minnesota

4. presentation ideas

4.1. demo examples of EPs

4.2. split up presentation between us

4.3. group activities

4.3.1. critical evaluation

4.3.1.1. based on critical criteria

4.3.1.2. also, based on past research

4.3.1.3. have students come up with criteria?

4.3.2. process/product debate

4.3.3. reflect on personal experience with EPs using WordPress.com

4.4. take away tools

4.4.1. ex, how to build your own

4.5. visual presentation

4.5.1. screen captures

4.5.2. video

5. Content

5.1. 5 Processes of the Portfolio

5.1.1. Collecting

5.1.2. Selecting

5.1.3. Reflecting

5.1.4. Directing/Goals

5.1.5. Presenting

5.2. eportofolios as a cognitive tool

5.2.1. organizing and structuring enhances comprehension

5.3. Challenges of eportfolios

5.4. examples of eprotfolios

5.5. eportfolios and evaluation

6. Illustrative Articles

6.1. eFolio Minnesota

6.1.1. Introduction

6.1.1.1. "governments and higher education must cultivate a learning society"

6.1.1.2. life-long learning

6.1.1.3. life-wide learning

6.1.2. research

6.1.2.1. goal: to see how users are using it

6.1.2.2. 6 functions of ePortfolios

6.1.2.2.1. educational planning

6.1.2.2.2. document knowledge, skills, abilities

6.1.2.2.3. tracking development

6.1.2.2.4. finding a job

6.1.2.2.5. evaluation with a course

6.1.2.2.6. performance monitoring

6.1.2.3. disproportionately used by people with advanced education

6.1.2.4. Role shifting

6.1.2.4.1. people's use of it changed over time

6.1.2.4.2. Role shifting suggests that eFolio is doing what it is designed to do for many of its active users, promoting lifewide and lifelong learning

6.1.2.5. Experimentation and the Living Document

6.1.2.5.1. 3 phases

6.1.2.6. Impact through...

6.1.2.6.1. Audience

6.1.2.6.2. Integrity

6.1.2.7. institutions can support ePortfolios by

6.1.2.7.1. encouraging collaboration

6.1.2.7.2. initial introduction and support

6.1.3. implications for practice

6.1.3.1. support access

6.1.3.1.1. free access

6.1.3.1.2. local support at school levels

6.1.3.1.3. reach communities outside education

6.1.3.2. foreground planning

6.1.3.2.1. materials supporting planning

6.1.3.2.2. include prompts and scaffolds to encourage it

6.1.3.2.3. organizations support its use

6.1.3.3. promote findability

6.1.3.3.1. control over who sees what

6.1.3.3.2. providing standardized formats supporting search

6.1.3.3.3. integration with job search databases

6.1.3.4. cultivate audiences

6.1.3.4.1. guidance and support to potential viewers

6.1.3.5. capture activity

6.1.3.5.1. feedback to users on how it's accessed

6.1.3.6. enable layering

6.1.3.6.1. same content to be navigated differently by different users for different purposes

6.1.3.7. foreground the personal

6.1.3.7.1. opportunities for identity expression

6.1.3.8. cultivate collaborative contexts

6.1.3.8.1. interaction reported as being important

6.1.3.9. promote integral introductions

6.1.3.9.1. users benefited from seeing the range of possible ways of expression

6.1.4. produce-oriented process

6.1.4.1. contributes to comprehending the tension

6.1.5. further research

6.1.5.1. fuller account of role shifting

6.1.5.2. how readers make sense of eFolios

6.1.5.3. inventory of effective practices for broader implimentation

6.1.5.4. promotion of use in other states/countries

6.1.6. eFolio Minnesota

6.1.6.1. an ePortfolio platform

6.1.6.2. available to all state residents

6.1.6.3. designed intentionally for life-long and life-wide learning

6.1.6.4. flexible templates for workers, students, & educators

6.1.6.5. dominated by students, still many worker and educator profiles

7. Leading questions

7.1. Compare treaditional portfolios to EP in relation to the learning

7.2. Is the qualitative vs quantitative paradigm appropriate to fully understand the impact of EP? Abrami and Barrett, 2005

7.3. What are the challenges of EP's with respect to assessment?

7.4. Are e Portfolios valuable forms of assessment?

7.4.1. If so, how are they used to facilitate integrative learning experiences? (Peet et al., 2011)

7.4.2. Do ePorts provide an environment for integrative learning (Peet et al...)

7.4.3. Assessor must use clear assessment framework that clearly articulates competencies and expected learning outcomes (Barrett article, my page 3) And, Abrami/ Barrett ask what is evidence of EP success?

7.5. eFolio Minnesota

7.5.1. How do the results of the study map on the 6 components of integrative learning described by Peet?

7.5.2. how does eFolio Minnesota score as a process? How does it score as a product?

7.5.3. Peet mentions areas of weakness in eFolio minnesota and suggests areas of future research. What are the potential benefits or drawbacks to using web 2.0 to address these?

7.5.4. How does eFolio succeed or fail along the 5 parts of the development process?ç