There are a number of encouraging signs that the interest in e-portfolios is growing particularly with respect to how they can support vocational learning.
JISC has just announced that they will be funding a number of research projects about e-portfolios. One is a study to 'identify,explore, document and analyse examples of large scale e-portflio implementations' with the outcome to produce models and guidance materials on effective practice in this area 'aimed at different stakeholder groups.' The other project aims to recruit ten people from the HE/FE sectors with varying experience of e-portfolios to review how e-portfolios are being used and make recommendations for their future use.
We really welcome these developments both because e-portfolios is an under research area and because anything that empowers centres and organisations, to make decisions about what is the best e-portfolio for them is welcomed
Thursday 22 April 2010
Wednesday 21 April 2010
Electronic v Written Submissions
Members of two of the health professional bodies with whom we work have recently been audited by the Health Professions Council (HPC). BAPO the British Association of Prosthetists and Orthitists have been praised by the HPC for doing particularly well in terms of their CPD audit. Early indications are that the majority of the radiographers who were asked to produce a submission to the HPC elected to do so using CPDnow, the e-portfolio we developed with their professional body SCoR.
This should be no surprise because the new HPC report template we have developed with SCoR enables their members to access their on-line CPD record, select the record(s) of their CPD activity that they wish to include in their HPC submission, select Run Report and their submission is instantly compiled ready to be e-mailed or sent to the HPC.
This should be no surprise because the new HPC report template we have developed with SCoR enables their members to access their on-line CPD record, select the record(s) of their CPD activity that they wish to include in their HPC submission, select Run Report and their submission is instantly compiled ready to be e-mailed or sent to the HPC.
Outputs v Inputs
There is a growing recognition that e-portfolios provide a great way to capture evidence of the impact of professional development on practice. Many regulatory and professional bodies recognise that counting hours engaged in Continuous Professional Development (CPD) activity on its own means nothing. What matters is the impact of this activity on the development on professional practice.
Such a view would appear to be self evident yet there are those that still cling solely on to counting hours as the key measure for assessing professional practice. It maybe because they are tied into existing and often cumbersome Learning Management Systems (LMS) that are designed to count and 'control' inputs; however there is increasing evidence that counting on it's own is no longer sufficient for regulators and professionals.
The Institute of Continuing Professional Development, in its commissioned research project Regulating Competencies: Is CPD working? found that, although many professions use a combination of both the input and output systems, they are increasingly turning to the more effective output systems.
Such a view would appear to be self evident yet there are those that still cling solely on to counting hours as the key measure for assessing professional practice. It maybe because they are tied into existing and often cumbersome Learning Management Systems (LMS) that are designed to count and 'control' inputs; however there is increasing evidence that counting on it's own is no longer sufficient for regulators and professionals.
The Institute of Continuing Professional Development, in its commissioned research project Regulating Competencies: Is CPD working? found that, although many professions use a combination of both the input and output systems, they are increasingly turning to the more effective output systems.
E-portfolios and the new Qualifications and Credit Framework
This important change to the way qualifications are structured is imminent and it provides a great opportunity to all e-portfolio providers to help assessment centres with this fundamental change in the way that qualifications are delivered.
Fortunately when we first designed our e-portfolio we had contact with one of the organisations that was assisting the government to determine whether a credit based approach to qualifications was feasible. Our judgement was that this approach would be introduced and therefore from the outset we constructed our e-portfolio so that units from qualifications are selected.
The introduction of the QCF therefore does not fundamentally challenge the way our e-portfolio operates. However we have always wanted to go further than this in order to ease the introduction of the QCF.
We notice that some e-portfolios are already providing the ability to calculate the credit values,in order to determine whether the qualification is an Award, Certificate or Diploma. Although we think its important to do this, the key point where we can assist Centres most is when they are 'constructing the qualification' for each learner using the Rules of Combination. They need to know what Units can be combined to create a qualification at the appropriate level and with the necessary number of Units.
Our developers are already working on this and should have something ready in the next two weeks. As with all our developers it will be designed in such a way to be able to accomodate any rule of combination. Exciting times and ones that we enthusiastically welcome and support.
Fortunately when we first designed our e-portfolio we had contact with one of the organisations that was assisting the government to determine whether a credit based approach to qualifications was feasible. Our judgement was that this approach would be introduced and therefore from the outset we constructed our e-portfolio so that units from qualifications are selected.
The introduction of the QCF therefore does not fundamentally challenge the way our e-portfolio operates. However we have always wanted to go further than this in order to ease the introduction of the QCF.
We notice that some e-portfolios are already providing the ability to calculate the credit values,in order to determine whether the qualification is an Award, Certificate or Diploma. Although we think its important to do this, the key point where we can assist Centres most is when they are 'constructing the qualification' for each learner using the Rules of Combination. They need to know what Units can be combined to create a qualification at the appropriate level and with the necessary number of Units.
Our developers are already working on this and should have something ready in the next two weeks. As with all our developers it will be designed in such a way to be able to accomodate any rule of combination. Exciting times and ones that we enthusiastically welcome and support.
Wednesday 14 April 2010
Horses for Courses
I have just been watching the presentation by Martin Douglamas the founder of Moodle Pty Ltd at the Educ Berlin event in December last year.
I sense from his presentation that he would find the debate about whether Moodle can be used to create an e-portfolio as being pretty irrelevant. He is very focused on what he believes to be the main purpose of Moodle which is to act as what he calls a 'Course Management System' and he appears very relaxed about other features being linked to it whether they are developed using proprietal software or based on Open source software.
What comes across very powerfully is the fact that, what he calls his guiding star, is learning and that his commitment is to creating learning environments that are flexible and adaptable and which help encourage purposeful and appropriate learning behaviour.
There is lots here that chimes with our approach.
I sense from his presentation that he would find the debate about whether Moodle can be used to create an e-portfolio as being pretty irrelevant. He is very focused on what he believes to be the main purpose of Moodle which is to act as what he calls a 'Course Management System' and he appears very relaxed about other features being linked to it whether they are developed using proprietal software or based on Open source software.
What comes across very powerfully is the fact that, what he calls his guiding star, is learning and that his commitment is to creating learning environments that are flexible and adaptable and which help encourage purposeful and appropriate learning behaviour.
There is lots here that chimes with our approach.
Tuesday 13 April 2010
Interoperability
I recall attending an e-portfolio conference where as a diversion from some of the less interesting contributions, we decided to decided to count the times that interoperability was mentioned. They were numerous and often the word was used to indicate the likelihood of computer systems failure, much in the way that people referred to the Millennium bug.
Our experience is that substantially interoperability is a myth. We have successfully created secure connections to any other database to which we have been required to make a link. Indeed we currently have in place sites where data is being transferred between multiple databases.
The trend is likely to continue because my colleague Robert Kimoff who is an expert in these matters recently reminded me that with respect to linking to systems that use open source software his view is that systems like Moodle appears to understand the evolving standard SCORM manifest. The manifest is simply an xml file which defines the learning experience and has resources and other supporting files, associated with it. NOW.net our platform has the ability to import just about any type of xml file so we would be able to handle a bridge between Moodle and NOW.net.
If the software is good enough then it can interconnect both ways.
Our experience is that substantially interoperability is a myth. We have successfully created secure connections to any other database to which we have been required to make a link. Indeed we currently have in place sites where data is being transferred between multiple databases.
The trend is likely to continue because my colleague Robert Kimoff who is an expert in these matters recently reminded me that with respect to linking to systems that use open source software his view is that systems like Moodle appears to understand the evolving standard SCORM manifest. The manifest is simply an xml file which defines the learning experience and has resources and other supporting files, associated with it. NOW.net our platform has the ability to import just about any type of xml file so we would be able to handle a bridge between Moodle and NOW.net.
If the software is good enough then it can interconnect both ways.
A 'proper' e-portfolio???
I recently found an interesting entry in Derrin Kent's blog http://derrin.biz/?p=88 What is Mahara (versus Paperfree, eNVQ, et.al.)? NVQnow is presumably in the list of et.als.
It is thoughtful contribution designed to help people faced with the decision about whether they should 'buy' one of the current solutions that are in the market, or alternatively use on of the 'Build your own kits' available through open source software like Mahara.
Clearly I need to declare an interest at this point as a provider of one of the solutions however I would also want to assert that we embrace many of the principles that underpin the Open Source movement. The users of our software all become members of the NOW.net community which enables them to have access to any developments of and enhancement to our core platform usually at little or no cost to themselves.
We therefore come to the debate as interested contributors rather than people who just wish to defend our position.
In his blog Derrin makes the bold declaration that TDM is 'now running an adaptation of Mahara (using Moodle and a special patch....which allows training providers (colleges or independent) of Evidence-Based Qualifications to create NVQ/QCF (or similar) template "pages" into which candidates can submit evidence for QCF units (of NVQs).'
There are other features like to the ability to add more content to enable the learner to 'show-off' their extended and reflective learning; submit pages for recording outcomes in Moodle's gradebook; make those pages available for assessment and allow learners to form '"walled garden" communities of practice'.
The blog finishes with an important reflection on who owns the e-portfolio. Clearly in Derrin's view it is key that the e-portfolio is owned by the individual. Whilst we recognise that is desirable, we have had to grapple with the notion of how can that work fully in an environment, such as the one created by QCA and implemented by awarding bodies, where quite rightly there are clear rules about who is allowed to do what and when in relation to the assessing and verification of evidence. In our experience awarding body endorsement of e-portfolios is not a random exercise, it is one that is based on their recognition that an e-portfolio delivers a secure and appropriate audit trail.
There are also some other real challenges to the open source approach that Derrin alludes to by implication if not explicably. Firstly although it is open source this does not mean it is free, something he tacitly acknowledges 'it is free of cost for anyone who has the skill to implement it...and we offer very reasonably-priced, zero vendor lock-in support services (hosting, configuration, end-user training, consultancy, etc.) for those who don't.'
Anyone who has been involved in assessment knows it is a movable feast and that any system that is designed to reflect best assessment practice has to be constantly evolved and changed. It is good that special patches have now been created but whose responsibility is to maintain and change these? Furthermore what are the guarantees that the core code will not be changed in a way that affects it's capacity to deal with any new changes in assessment.
It is indeed arguable that the principles that underpin the development of open source code are counter intuitive to the regulatory environment that is required for assessment that can be fully quality assured. When we have been involved in co-operative ventures with company's that use open source software, their reluctance to produce the sort of admin tool that enables us to control who does what using groups, roles and permissions is notable. The same tools that we use to keep the user experience as simple as possible.
This is where we again we agree with Derrin for we are as focused on the individual as he is. What matters however is that the user experiences an e-portfolio that is both fully accessible and meets their needs.
It is thoughtful contribution designed to help people faced with the decision about whether they should 'buy' one of the current solutions that are in the market, or alternatively use on of the 'Build your own kits' available through open source software like Mahara.
Clearly I need to declare an interest at this point as a provider of one of the solutions however I would also want to assert that we embrace many of the principles that underpin the Open Source movement. The users of our software all become members of the NOW.net community which enables them to have access to any developments of and enhancement to our core platform usually at little or no cost to themselves.
We therefore come to the debate as interested contributors rather than people who just wish to defend our position.
In his blog Derrin makes the bold declaration that TDM is 'now running an adaptation of Mahara (using Moodle and a special patch....which allows training providers (colleges or independent) of Evidence-Based Qualifications to create NVQ/QCF (or similar) template "pages" into which candidates can submit evidence for QCF units (of NVQs).'
There are other features like to the ability to add more content to enable the learner to 'show-off' their extended and reflective learning; submit pages for recording outcomes in Moodle's gradebook; make those pages available for assessment and allow learners to form '"walled garden" communities of practice'.
The blog finishes with an important reflection on who owns the e-portfolio. Clearly in Derrin's view it is key that the e-portfolio is owned by the individual. Whilst we recognise that is desirable, we have had to grapple with the notion of how can that work fully in an environment, such as the one created by QCA and implemented by awarding bodies, where quite rightly there are clear rules about who is allowed to do what and when in relation to the assessing and verification of evidence. In our experience awarding body endorsement of e-portfolios is not a random exercise, it is one that is based on their recognition that an e-portfolio delivers a secure and appropriate audit trail.
There are also some other real challenges to the open source approach that Derrin alludes to by implication if not explicably. Firstly although it is open source this does not mean it is free, something he tacitly acknowledges 'it is free of cost for anyone who has the skill to implement it...and we offer very reasonably-priced, zero vendor lock-in support services (hosting, configuration, end-user training, consultancy, etc.) for those who don't.'
Anyone who has been involved in assessment knows it is a movable feast and that any system that is designed to reflect best assessment practice has to be constantly evolved and changed. It is good that special patches have now been created but whose responsibility is to maintain and change these? Furthermore what are the guarantees that the core code will not be changed in a way that affects it's capacity to deal with any new changes in assessment.
It is indeed arguable that the principles that underpin the development of open source code are counter intuitive to the regulatory environment that is required for assessment that can be fully quality assured. When we have been involved in co-operative ventures with company's that use open source software, their reluctance to produce the sort of admin tool that enables us to control who does what using groups, roles and permissions is notable. The same tools that we use to keep the user experience as simple as possible.
This is where we again we agree with Derrin for we are as focused on the individual as he is. What matters however is that the user experiences an e-portfolio that is both fully accessible and meets their needs.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
