Talk:Electronic portfolio

Untitled
I'm the author of the text originally contained on http://www.europortfolio.org. Serge 12:25, 21 Nov 2003 (UTC)

To put this page into more of an encyclopedic style, I think it should include information on what bodies define the ePortfolio standards it mentions, how many standards there are, how long this thing has been around, who is using it, and that kind of thing. As it stands it is a definition, but it doesn't put the topic into the context of the rest of the universe. Without that context information, it's impossible for the uninformed reader to see whether ePortfolios are actually interesting or important - the reader can't tell whether they are totally irrelevant because nobody uses them, or vitally important because half the universities in the world use nothing else. Onebyone 11:29, 21 Nov 2003 (UTC)


 * I am new to Wikipedia but have been doing a lot of research on eportfolios in higher education. I have been working on some edits for the page but would like some other opinions on whether this helps address some of the concision issues with this article:

Eportfolio is a digitized collection consisting of artifacts and reflection. Typically, an eportfolio is designed to showcase diverse achievements and traits of the creator and is targeted to a particular audience.

Artifacts: Artifacts are selected by the creator to represent a specific project or experience and can take the form of written texts (essays, lab reports, resumes, articles, etc.), texts in other media (videos, podcasts, screencasts, songs, blue prints, 3D models, photos, graphics, maps, etc.) and/or blended texts.

Reflection: It is the reflection component that distinguishes eportfolio from merely a digital archive of artifacts. Creators must interpret and communicate the importance of individual artifacts to the eportfolio’s overall message. In the same way an essay writer must combine evidence and analysis to support their thesis statement, the eportfolio’s reflections must explain the significance of each artifact to the formation of the creator’s identity in a particular context. [1]

Higher Education: Eportfolios are growing in popularity in higher academia for a number of reasons. Two of the most widely cited are 1) as a tool for assessment and 2) as a tool to foster integrative learning. Although these two uses are not mutually exclusive, they are often seen as being at odds with one another because the first prioritizes the needs of administrative stakeholders (the audience for the eportfolio) while the other prioritizes the needs and benefits of the individual learner (the producer of the eportfolio). [2]; [3]

Life Long Learning: The potential of an eportfolio to bridge the gap between formal education and life long learning is one of the reasons educators from every level and discipline have been quick to adopt it. "The e-portfolio is a tool for documenting and managing one's own learning over a lifetime in ways that foster deep and continuous learning. The e-portfolio is uniquely suited for 21st century learning, an age when learning takes place anywhere and anytime, both inside and outside formal education" (55). [4]

Job Seekers:

Research on the value of eportfolios for jobseekers is sparse and mostly anecdotal. One study from 2008 found that 56% of employers said they would use eportfolios to make hiring decisions in the future, but there are as yet no published studies confirming or contradicting this projection. That 2008 study concludes "E-portfolios demonstrate students' learning and competency, yet higher education has not persuaded employers to use them in recruiting and selecting employees." [5]

Reese, Michael; Levy, John. "Assessing the Future: E-Portfolio Trends, Uses, and Options in Higher Education". Educause: Center for Applied Research - Research Bulletin (2009,4). https://net.educause.edu/ir/library/pdf/ERB0904.pdf Love, Terrence; Cooper, Trudi. (2004) "Designing Online Information Systems for Portfolio-Based Assessment: Design Criteria and Heuristics" Journal of Information Technology Education, Volume 3. 65-81. http://jite.org/documents/Vol3/v3p065-081-127.pdf Batson, Trent. "The ePortfolio Hijacked". 'Campus Technology' 12 Dec 2007. http://campustechnology.com/articles/2007/12/the-eportfolio-hijacked.aspx "Jenson, Jill D.; Treuer, Paul. "Defining the E-Portfolio: What It Is and Why It Matters". Change: The Magazine of Higher Learning 46.2, 50-57 http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/00091383.2014.897192 Ward, Chris; Moser, Chris. "E-Portfolios as a Hiring Tool: Do Employers Really Care?". 'Educause Quarterly (2008) 31.4 http://www.educause.edu/ero/article/e-portfolios-hiring-tool-do-employers-really-care Lmdouko82 (talk) 22:48, 14 June 2015 (UTC)

Thank you very much for your helpful comment. Since my first attempt, I've had the time to browse through the different style manuals, and realised that, as you wrote, it's more a dictionary entry, and completely lacked context -- it's kind of ironic as I'm the advocate of context management systems over content management system. As I've already written several articles on the subject, I'll try to make something at the same time concise and informative.

What I'll also do is ask fellow ePortfolio specialists to work with me on a good (series of) article(s).

One question though (if you ever come back to this page): when I use a text I've written myself (or in collaboration with a direct colleague) is making a statement in the talk page sufficient or are there other procedures. After reading the documentation and FAQs, this is still not clear to me. Serge 12:25, 21 Nov 2003 (UTC)


 * Making the statement here is sufficient unless someone decides for some reason not to believe you (which isn't entirely unreasonable since there's nothing on Wikipedia that proves who you are). I'm not sure what happens in that situation, I'd guess that they will independently contact the website in question for confirmation. Onebyone 15:13, 21 Nov 2003 (UTC)


 * Yes, that's exactly what I did, and can, therefore, confirm that Serge is the original author of the work, and is able to release it under the GFDL. I've merged the temp page with the original article, so that the original is now here. Angela 18:44, 21 Nov 2003 (UTC)


 * That's excellent, but when I add something I've written elswhere, is there a way I can make the job of administrators such as you Angela easier ? Should I modify the original Internet file, to includes the GFDL statement?


 * That would be a great idea. Angela 21:34, 21 Nov 2003 (UTC)

copyright
Just in case, I hold the copyright of the material, orginally published in the LiKE newsletter (www.eife-l.org/like).Serge 13:04, 21 Nov 2003 (UTC)


 * I moved the above from the article - such things are better on the talk page. Angela 18:46, 21 Nov 2003 (UTC)

Suggestions for a major revision
Reviewing the Electronic Portfolio entry, I belive that it might be improved in seveal ways.

First, some decision needs to be made about re-factoring some portfolio definitions out of this entry, in favor of the portfolio (education) entry and second, a broader recognition of the current landscape of tools to implement an electronic portfolio should be examined.

Refactoring. The three main types of ePorfolios described are really types of portfolios and probably should be addressed on that page. (I personally would describe these types of portfolios more in terms of three actions by portfolio authors (collect, select, reflect). What might usefully be retained would be a discussion of how electronic portfolios enable or augment each of the three types. I'm thinking for example of a mentor commenting on reflections, or of peer critique.

An idea that helps distinquish a portfolio from an electronic impelmentation of a portfolio is the latter can separate two functions: repository and presentation. (Perhaps it would be useful to recognize that several of the functions of an electronic portfolio map directly to content management systems.) Individual portfolio artifacts can be collected in the repository and then presented, singly or multiply in one or more different presentations for different audiences. This flexibilty is one of the distinguishing features of the electronic implementation.

Landscape of tools. The implication of the article is that there are a few standards-based eportfolio applications. That is true, there are, to varying degrees, standards, and also by degrees, software applications that implement them. However, the emphasis on standards and iteroperability is only one dimension of the landscape to consider. There are other tools that have 'emergent' portfolio properties, and bear mention in this article. An example would be a "blog." While weak as a content managment system, blogs have the property of being highly connected via Ping/Trackback such that the communication about the elements in the blog-portfolio is facilitated. Wiki can also serve as a portfolio, consider the "my contributions" feature of MediaWiki. What is interesting in both the blog and wiki examples is that the portfolio artifacts (and largely the presentation) are being created as a by-products of ongoing work in a tool. Nils peterson 23:59, 1 August 2005 (UTC)

I agree 100% about the "types" section. These aren't the main types. Types include Working, Learning, Advising, Professional, and Assessment portfolios. There is overlap between these types. Collecting, Selecting and Reflecting are the typical ways the actions are described. I'd like to see TYpes and Actions sections in the revision and will gladly contribute to this as I am currently developing faculty training materials for my employer.

204.249.68.152 17:42, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

The Usage Section is too Promotional--not Neutral
It should be written from a more neutral point of view--the section should focus on intended utility and not sound like a sales pitch. It could even be deleted, since it is adequately described in other sections. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 143.200.142.130 (talk) 14:30, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Pedantry
" "
 * 1) use sans-serif fonts
 * 2) use typical font types (Times New Roman, Verdana, Arial, etc.)

Times New Roman is a serif font...

As a web developer, I must point out that "typical font types", from the POV of web development, are really, "sans-serif", "serif", and "monospace". Font names (e.g. "Verdana") have no place in a web page aiming for broad usability.

Additionally, "Browser safe colors" is no longer an issue in today's browsers. Whoever wrote the section on web design considerations appeared to have been writing from the POV of ten years ago.

I'd actually suggest that the entire section on design considerations doesn't belong here. It's like looking at an entry for "car" and finding a huge section devoted to paint finish options...

Why should we do this
This portfolio is pointless. I feel that we the students dont need to show what we learned 3 times every year. We all ready do the mid-terms and the final exams, so why should we have to make a profolio showing the work we did in class. It's like makeing a folder to show your parents what you learned in school today. I for one think this is possably the dumbest idea ever thought up, its right up there with the war in Iraq and the Articles of Confederation. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 158.123.138.50 (talk) 15:04, 13 December 2006 (UTC).

I agree that the article comes off sounding like a sales pitch -- not neutral. How about some data on the supposed benefits of e-portfolios in education, including scientific studies proving that e-portfolios aid student learning in some way. Is there, in fact, any such thing? Also, how about some criticism of e-portfolios as being potentially just another educational fad that will inevitably go the way of countless other educational fads such as "the one-room schoolhouse"? I think there is far more to e-portfolios than the feel-good hype that is being trumpeted in this article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.9.34.156 (talk) 15:41, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Lists of external links
(The following discussion was moved from my talk page after I deleted a list of external links from the body of the article, deeming it linkspam. =Axlq 14:42, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

Showing the available and popular examples of an electronic portfolio is not link spam. These are in fact useful examples of what the theoretically focused text in the article is speaking about. Virtual experience is lived experience; It is different than the physical world. Would you delete a photo of a dolphin from the entry on dolphins? No. Why not? That is the same reason you should leave the linked examples to "electronic" portfolios in the external links section. Thanks, sgoggins. Sgoggins (talk) 19:38, 27 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Kindly review What Wikipedia is not. In this instance, Wikipedia is not web directory of external links, and it is not an indiscriminate collection of information. The examples presented by those sites are unnecessary and detract from the quality of the article. If those sites aren't notable enough to have their own articles, there is no need to link to them. =Axlq 04:08, 28 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Kindly review Wikipedia_is_an_encyclopedia . Next, check the wikipedia entry for Sociotechnical_systems_theory .  After reflection, you will recognize that your training and passion for recognizing link spam requires some adaptation when the very entry under consideration is the discussion of something "electronic".  I hope you are more of a judge than a police officer;  That you see your role as helping to develop the culture of wikipedia appropriately, and not simply to act in response to what you first see.  The entry you are editing incorrectly is for ELECTRONIC portfolios.  These are real things, but in the virtual world.  The theoretically well substantiated points in the article are interesting, but actually tell you very little about what an ELECTRONIC portfolio is.  In order to comply with the wikipedia rules that indicate wikipedia is not a directory, or a place for promotion, etc., the diversity of examples is about 1 dozen.  The question you need to ask is:  Does wikipedia only support pure theory, or does wikipedia also address *real things* in the "real" world.  If wikipedia is to deal with the virtual world, some thinking about how to reasonably apply the spirit of the law to these cases must be undertaken.  The fact is that what an ELECTRONIC portfolio "is", is still being negotiated in this real world.  The examples provided reflect the diversity of these different understandings.  A classic "encyclopedia" dealt mostly with history, and evidence supported by physical things in the physical world.  In this new, virtual world that wikipedia itself is a part of, how we provide examples is of the utmost importance.  The removal of these links renders the article of little practical use to anyone except an academic. 12.10.125.8 (talk) 14:15, 28 August 2008 (UTC)


 * I know the policies and guidelines, thank you. My original comments still stand. External links to non-notable examples are inappropriate, a directory of external links is inappropriate, links going to promotional pages that do not further illuminate the articleare inappropriate, and exceptions aren't warranted because you think one article is a special case. The policies and guidelines apply to all. If you want to reflect the diversity of different understandings, then write about them, with appropriate citations. Again, that large list of links do not belong there. I have requested a 3rd opinion. =Axlq 14:37, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

Third Opinion
Notable examples should be converted into prose, and referenced with links to the external sites within tags. Bare "External Sites" are less valuable than contextualized links. While Axlq is correct in his reading of WP:EL, articles can and should contain external references in the reflist, especially if is used. Jclemens (talk) 16:13, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

Comment
The suggestion that one can convert a virtual space into descriptive text is not well informed. For example, describe a Dolphin with text. Why would one do that? One would not. The linking of representative examples of a concept whose definition is still being worked out through practice in the world is both valid and appropriate according to wikipedia's guidelines. This AXLQ fellow is not considering the facts of this case. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.10.125.8 (talk • contribs) 21:43, 28 August 2008

There is definite hole in AXLQ's aurgument. Wikipedia and its body of editors and volunteer editors can't keep up with the ever expanding body of world wide knowledge. They are coming up short in fulfilling the purpose of an encyclopedia. From Wikipedia's own article on encyclopedia's

n. encyclopedia (or encyclopædia) is a comprehensive written compendium that contains information on either all branches of knowledge or a particular branch of knowledge.

“      Indeed, the purpose of an encyclopedia is to collect knowledge disseminated around the globe; to set forth its general system to the men with whom we live, and transmit it to those who will come after us, so that the work of preceding centuries will not become useless to the centuries to come; and so that our offspring, becoming better instructed, will at the same time become more virtuous and happy, and that we should not die without having rendered a service to the human race.—Diderot[2]

Interesting note that AXLQ admits this is a problem in a comment posted related to his involvement in an wikipedia fishes project, " Northern hogsucker - stub, not much to say. There are many fish that need articles, please help." Are the fish species that are missing "not relevant" information? Are these gaps in wikipedia's information a problem that undermines its primary purpose? These fish species are relevant and wikipedia is in jepordy of failing at fulfilling its primary purpose do to these gaps in information.

What is the solution. I suggest, a reasonable compromise with links to sources of information outside of Wikipedia are needed to compensate for wikipedia's inability to keep up with the explosion of world-wide information. Loss of information whether it be species of fish or electronic portfolio tools is a shortcoming within wikipedia which undermines its primary purpose and can not be accepted. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.10.125.8 (talk • contribs) 21:43, 28 August 2008
 * Allow me to be a little bit more explicit. There are two choices here:
 * 1) The extra external links are removed, or
 * 2) The external links are presented in a manner consistent with Wikipedia's core policies.
 * I'm all in favor of presenting information in a compelling and meaningful way, but we're not going to debate WP:NOT and WP:EL on this page. You may feel free to seek out those pages' associated talk page and begin such a discussion there, should you desire. Jclemens (talk) 00:47, 29 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Thank you. I am also in favor of presenting the information in a meaningful way. Policies and guidelines are not negotiable, as I have been trying to explain.
 * There is no hole in my argument. Claiming "it's too complex so we need the links instead" is nothing more than a lazy excuse for not writing a good article, and does not justify making exceptions due to perceived "special circumstances". I have deleted the links yet again, per policy. If the opposing editor can show where in Wikipedia's policies and guidelines (not general definitions) such a list of links is permissible, I will gladly withdraw. But WP:NOT and WP:EL are quite clear on this point. =Axlq 03:10, 29 August 2008 (UTC)
 * I have to site with Axlq in this, the article should be theoretical because this is an encyclopedia, I think there are still to many links in the article at this moment (to both the conferences and research, if the research is that important make references to the conclusion at apropriet moments). Also the part that reads "For a profound insight to the use of traditional portfolios and their educational benefits and practices check out Elizabeth Hebert. Helen Barrett is probably the most authoritative author for anything related to e-Portfolios - 'The Grandmother of e-Portfolios some have called her." is not encyclopedia like. Forinstance if the insights of E. Hebert are profound, why are they then not mentioned with a reference to the article(s). Same goes for Helen Barret, references to articles with in the text would make her authoritative, now it is just a line someone added, without any proof (her website is nice, but I can also put up a website) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mach10 (talk • contribs) 04:09, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

It is unfortunate that there was no follow up to the elimination of Dr. Helen Barrett. She really is both the grandmother and the guru of e-portfolios. I have omitted the longer list of references, but there are some simple proofs on this point that could have been added to this article, which I agree needs quite a re-write. It is my hope to tackle this in the next few months: 1. Her website is incredibly comprehensive, with pedagogy, practical advice, and examples of how she has created a portfolio in almost every platform imaginable, both paid and free, including their affordances (Barrett, 2016) 2. She has partnered with Google to create a detailed step-by-step guide to using Google sites for creating an e-portfolio, which Google recommends new users explore and use (Google, n.d.). And partnered with Apple, and the George Lucas Educational foundation (Barrett, 2013). 3. She has, at the very least, written 18 journal articles, spoken at 4 conferences and written 1 book, according to a simple Google Scholar search, with scholarly work ranging from 1994 - 2011. She has also written a very long list of documents, wiki entries, how-to, and other resources, both on her site, and for other sites. (see References) 4. Looking at her resume, she has multiple positions as faculty and researcher related to technology, as well as founding her own academy for K-12 teachers professional development around e-portfolios. She also has quite a few awards and honours, including being awarded the first Lifetime Achievement Award by EIFEL at the Fifth Annual EuroPortfolio Conference in Maastricht, The Netherlands, October 2007, to recognize contribution to ePortfolio research and development. (Barrett, 2013) She is clearly THE e-portfolio guru! References Abrami, P., & Barrett, H. (2005). Directions for research and development on electronic portfolios. Canadian Journal of Learning and Technology/La Revue Canadienne De l’apprentissage Et De La Technologie, 31(3) Barrett, H. (2013). 5-page version of vita [pdf]. Dr. Helen Barrett’s Brief Biography. Retrieved from http://electronicportfolios.com/2012Vita-5page.pdf Barrett, H. (1997). Collaborative planning for electronic portfolios: Asking strategic questions. Retrieved from the World Wide Web: Http://transition.Alaska.edu/www/portfolios/planning.Html, Barrett, H. (2016). electronicportfolios.org. Retrieved from http://electronicportfolios.com/ Barrett, H. C. (2011). Balancing the two faces of ePortfolios. British Columbia Ministry of Education, Innovations in Education, 2nd Edition. Retrieved from http://electronicportfolios.com/index2.html Barrett, H. C. (2007). Research electronic portfolios and learner engagement: The REFLECT initiative: A rationale for the application of electronic portfolios in classrooms can strengthen arguments for their use. Journal of Adolescent & Adult Literacy, 50(6), 436. Barrett, H. C., & Garrett, N. (2009). Online personal learning environments: Structuring electronic portfolios for lifelong and life-wide learning. On the Horizon, 17(2), 142-152. doi:10.1108/10748120910965511 Gibson, D., & Barrett, H. (2003). Directions in electronic portfolio development. Technology and Teacher Education Annual, 1, 58-64. Google. (n.d.). Using Google sites for creating an eportfolio. Eportfolio resource center. Retrieved from https://sites.google.com/site/resourcecentereportfolio/how-to-use-google-sites Ldayjones — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ldayjones (talk • contribs) 17:48, 13 March 2017 (UTC)

External Links (again)
At the risk of tipping more worms from the can, someone needs to take a grip of this article and prune, if not cull, the current lists (plural!) of external links. I'm minded to support the original comment that most of these should simply be removed unless they can be shown to directly support the text of the article. However, I am nowhere near expert enough in the field to do so. I'm just very aware that I have removed links to www.e-portfolios.net from other pages because they were clearly just advertising, yet if I do so here, then it seems that I ought to wipe out several others - something which has clearly been attempted in the past.

Could perhaps some of those of you with interest/knowledge in the field try to come to some sort of consensus on this - or at the least a consensus on how to organise the many sections of links that currently exist in the article under 'See Also', EL & related events is franky embarrassingly laughable! Tafkam (talk) 23:11, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 1 one external link on Electronic portfolio. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20120229121030/http://www.fdewb.unimaas.nl/EDUC/MASTER/Documents/Proceedings_S_ICT2008_Final.pdf to http://www.fdewb.unimaas.nl/EDUC/MASTER/Documents/Proceedings_S_ICT2008_Final.pdf#page=73

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).

Cheers.—cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 21:39, 28 April 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 1 one external link on Electronic portfolio. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20131102080117/https://net.educause.edu/ir/library/pdf/ELI3001.pdf to http://www.net.educause.edu/ir/library/pdf/eli3001.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 08:05, 22 December 2016 (UTC)