Core activity 2.3: E-Portfolio Case study

Core activity 2.3: ePortfolio case studies

Case Study – West Cheshire College (WCC) Electronic NVQ

West Cheshire College electronic  NVQ, QIA Excellence Gateway. Available from: http://excellence.qia.org.uk/page.aspx?o=137813 (accessed 25 May 2010). 

The Electronic NVQ project run in conjunction with the WCC aimed to reduce the burden of paperwork created by the necessity of evidence based proof.  The project aimed to make the learning events and subsequent capture of evidence paperless by utilising mobile phones, digital cameras, email and audio devises.  In addition, the paper based system required periodic flurries of interaction between the tutor and candidate followed by periods of no interaction.  An anticipated benefit of using an e-portfolio system would be the re-connection of tutor and candidate leading to a higher quality of feedback and appraisal.  Also learners who were failing to adequately engage could be identified and remedial steps taken earlier. 

Limitations included the provision of adequate infrastructure, for staff, students and assessors, network security restrictions which hampered internet access and competing time pressures on students. 

The e-portfolio users in this instance had ownership of their portfolios.  Submissions to it were via readily available technology in terms of mobile phones.  The candidate’s employer could be more involved and working patterns did not negate attendance or engagement as the physical access to the college was replaced by College on line portal where, advice and guidance were available outside of college hours.  Candidates could be remotely monitored by tutors, verifiers and workforce development co-ordinators. 

The learners benefited from a doubling of the retention rate.  What is not clear from the text is whether this ‘retention’ is of learning or retention of candidates on the course as the text goes on to use retention in terms of financial benefits to the college.  Nonetheless, the key messages from the text are;  the increased engagement of learners, their subsequent increase in achievement and that learning through ICT can be fun. 

The eNVQ case study appears driven by the desire to remove the paper based evidence burden rather than implementing e-portfolios specifically.  In this instance e-portfolios appear to be more of an easily accessible repository of evidence rather than exploiting the wider benefits of e-portfolio use.  This starting premise may explain why the wider teaching and learning implications outlined in the Key Drivers document by Group X are absent from the text.  I would suggest the primary driver cited above (the reduction of paper work) seems inconsistent with the degree of change required to implement the eportfolio system in this instance.  As relevant though not explicit was the colleges desire to ‘develop an integrated approach to the planning and delivery of vocational provision’ which utilised digital technology to capture evidence.  These drivers sit more comfortably with the UK element of the template.  

Core activity 2.5: Criteria for reflective writing - RLO_CETL Approach

Core activity 2.5: Criteria for reflective writing RLO-CETL Approach

I actually found the RLO-CETL piece rather useful in that it provides a framework and a series of questions that can be applied to any given reflective opportunity. The reflective theorist history provided helpful if though not essential background and the simple learning styles questionnaire had merit.   But it was the simple questioning framework of something happened?, what happened?, so what?, and what next? which appeared the most powerful tool here.  The recognition that something had happened and a few questions to follow seem logical and easy to follow for those new to reflective writing. The explicit discussion of why reflect on page 8 was useful to recognize and therefore overcome the habitual  element to our thinking.  It highlighted the conscious effort required and why it is worth while. Section 9, on what should be written about, appeared rather obvious but in the final analysis if a student takes time to write about something that struck them as important enough to take the time to think about it and reflect then it has learning merit.  Whether that merit builds to a course objective is dependent upon the student, learning design and interpretation. Finally, students like to have an example to follow and the one provided on page 10 was sufficiently vague enough in terms of scenario to be applicable, but specific enough to demonstrate the requirements of reflective writing.  I feel I have a grasp of 'how' I should write reflectively, but little idea of how that can be translated into a tutor marking scheme where, as my colleagues have already outlined, the output and determination of development is still subjective.    

Are E Portfolios Yesterdays Flash-in-the-Pan?

Are E Portfolios Yesterdays Flash-in-the-Pan?

Studying new a subject, like a commercial product, has a life cycle. And while I'm only halve way through the cycle with E-Portfolios (I think), I've already had some major changes of direction and thinking in the concept. I've not yet started the Core Task on E-Portfolios but some initial thoughts are worth noting. These are in chronological order...

1. I really couldn't see how these things could be relevant to me or my organisation.

2. Wow, where have these been all my life, how could anyone in my field know so little about such a great concept/tool. I am so unconsciously incompetent (or am now?)

3. Why are these papers dated 2002/5/6 etc. Why hasn't this argument moved on. Why can'tI identify a market leader in this area? Why aren't we all using them? I suspect that there are reasons for this? Which E-Portfolio should I be using?

I guess I'd best go do some reading and find out.