Here's the recording from this morning's meeting focusing on e-portfolios. It was a small gathering but interesting conversation. We hope to continue the discussion next Tuesday morning after some more time to read and ponder .... and post here of course.
My reading today led me back to some really interesting debate on the topics nearly two years ago by members of TALO. I extracted some narrative to stir people's thinking up a bit over in the NSW LearnScope blog. I hope you can find time to read and contribute there.
Here's a brief summary of the topics covered this morning...
- e-portfolios = PERSONAL electronic portfolios
- individuals should be able to determine style, content, mode, purpose
- purpose as a driver
- who benefits? - is the current push a drive for streamlining administrivia?
- what of privacy?
- can users determine who sees what and when?
- how does this link to individual's multiple identities?
- are e-portfolios about making individual life experiences real/ explicit for others?
- who is excluded in an e-portfolio paradigm?
- is the management of a personal e-portfolio a 21st century literacy skill?
- what's the link with employers - are they open to e-portfolios? do they need educating?
- what are the issues around individuals using social networking sites and social software?
- is it about managing and manipulating identities?
- where does the server space come from to enable secure ongoing storage of media? should we expect that?
- does GenY even want one?
- what are the pedagogical implications?
- how do we grapple with equity and access issues?
- is stuff online forever? is it ephemeral?
2 comments:
eughirlgHi all
I’ve been following the links that Kathie put in her post below (thanks Kathie for the pathways) and came across this quote “What is an e-portfolio not? a haphazard collection of artefacts (i.e. a scrapbook) but rather a reflective tool which demonstrates growth over time Barrett, 2000”.
This is interesting, isn’t it? It seems to assume that someone has determined what is haphazard ... and perhaps it’s not the author / owner who sets the criteria. Does this mean that e-portfolios are always developed for externally determined purposes, and against externally set assessment criteria? Determined by teachers, assessors, employers?
Joy wondered the other day whether her kids’ myspaces / facebooks could be /are e-portfolios. Well, maybe not, if someone else is going to consider them haphazard... where does the control lie?
I can see amazing potential for e-portfolios for aboriginal people, as in my experience, a shoebox is good for starting fires, not holding anything related to 'things they can do'. However, there is the issue of such things as access to, and ability to, engage with the necessary hardware and software to create such a portfolio, its management and its access. The ability to store images - still and moving and audio make digital medium very useful for aboriginal people. With high levels of mobility having 'everywhere' access to their own portfolio could be of great value to them....that's the most important thing...it needs to hold value for the owner.
Post a Comment