Comments on Learning Futures: EIfEL becomes a MultiplePortfolio (MeP) organisati...

Serge, I welcome this venture and hope that this ...

2009-05-30T04:41:40.471-07:00

Serge,

I welcome this venture and hope that this will enable e-Portfolio developers to establish a community of practice whereby we can test out the effectiveness (or not) of the interoperability of our various tools.

I hear stories of an institution exporting from one system but files not being importing by another system. And then, of course is the IMS/SCORM/SIF/LEAP2 debacle (apologies if I have missed out any other systems!)

I just wonder how many years it will take to develop effective interoperability?

Best Wishes,
Ray T.

I Agree with you John. We shouldn't aim for a 'sta...

2009-05-27T20:32:26.644-07:00

I Agree with you John. We shouldn't aim for a 'standard' ePortfolio —that’s my idea of a 1984-like nightmare. We want standards that empower individuals in the management of their personal assets, independently from any platform. The same piece of evidence can be used, not only for multiple portfolios, but for work, life or fun. There should be no need to upload at any time any piece of evidence into any ePortfolio Management System. We want an environment where we can organise our assets the way we want, with the tools we like. On the other hand, we should be able to easily compile an ePortfolio for a job, to get a qualification, etc. But the way to do it should be by simply using references to things that are in my world wide repository, and not limited to the straight jacket of current ePortfolios management systems.

ePortfolio management systems should only deal with references to external objects accessible through a URI (unique resource identifier, that can be a simple URL). These external objects should be enriched with meta data, like link to competencies, as well as any other meta data that are relevant, independently from any ePortfolio purpose.

So the role of ePortfolio platforms should not be the management of assets, but of part of their metadata, those relevant to the purpose. For example, if a piece of evidence has been accepted by a reviewer, it should be possible to simply add this information to the piece of evidence. As the piece of evidence can be anything and can’t be modified (as this would change other data, such as the modification date), it is possible to create a set of metadata that are connected to this element through a URI. This is more of less what happens with social bookmarking. Pages are being enriched with metadata that are stored somewhere else. This is the service ePortfolio management should provide. Like that, any institution could accept that everyone chooses his/her own ePortfolio management system. Just like you can chose today your own social bookmarking system.

Quite a challenge if I have understood it correctl...

2009-05-26T00:34:13.691-07:00

Quite a challenge if I have understood it correctly. Assumption: unlikely that we will ever converge on a 'standard' ePortfolio, therefore we use the technology to enable learners, all using different ePortfolio tools, to benefit from the ePortfolio process.

Sounds eminently sensible to me, reinforcing the message that if it is the ePortfolio process that has value for learning, we should develop tools and techniques that support the processes and allows the learner to select the ePortfolio tool that suits them. After all, by allowing them to have choice and voice as the select the learning tools that they 'want' to use we will be supporting the 'personalisation' agenda.

Reflection is essential to the ePortfolio process; being able to share and enter into a learning dialogue about their reflections, thinking and planning reinforces the value of reflection and supports learning. Anything that makes it easier for learners to do this, regardless of their choice ePortfolio tool, must be good.