Apologies for the delayed response, colleagues, this article was struggs-ville. It was written in 2009--has the web really changed that much since then? Apparently so! Who is the intended audience?? Is it, as I believe it is, attempting to describe what is now the cloud? Or are we talking something more portfolio-y than just storage space? If the author knew about dropbox and google drive would she be like "Aha, the dream has been realized! Now we just need to tackle the 'sociocultural' aspect and get everyone to upload everything they've ever produced or needed to file from birth."? I really have no idea. I barely have any idea how this applies to us since e-portfolios are required of no one and do not seem to be the way things are moving. However, I appreciated the potential that "In this type of system, students engage in learning experiences that encourage them to produce artifacts that can be stored in the working portfolio. This process is interactive and reflective. It provides a rationale for using artifacts as evidence of learning. The artifacts become meaningful to the student as evidence of their own understanding and growth." It's sort of hard for me to envision this since the whole article is a hypothetical. Throughout middle school, and again throughout high school, our English teachers kept an ongoing portfolio of our work in a filing cabinet, to which we would file away our essays. It never felt very cumulative or reflexive, although I do recall doing something like writing a reflection at "transition points," as is mentioned in the article. Perhaps this never served as a rationale for using artifacts as evidence for learning, though, precisely because we didn't have access to it. Looking back at three or four years worth of work was always interesting, but fleeting. Maybe having a personal e-portfolio would indeed create more incentive to build it. As far as practice, though, I think most of the benefits touted in this article would be lost if my class was the only one that required keeping a digital portfolio. It might still be cool to do, though; the thing is, it would need to feel like a big cumulative, on-going project for the students. It can't be as simple as having them keep digital copies of all their work. The year would need to be thematically linked; there should be lots of revision and, when work needs to be assessed, there should be student choice (and perhaps a written reflection) of the strongest pieces. I dunno man, that's all I got.
portfolio-y! good one!
ReplyDeleteyour sassy voice made me laugh out loud. so, thanks.
after reading eric's post, I'm moved (not like soul-shaking moved, more like nudged) to think about the potential uses of a digital portfolio in reflection and revision (as you point out) and presentation of past (really, ongoing) work. Your concerns, however, resonate with me - particularly the limitations of this kind of practice if only the work of one class were digitally archived. Ideally (that's what we're going for here, right?), the portfolio would be across all subjects, with tags distinguishing work. This could, ostensibly, create opportunities for cross-course, multidisciplinary work.
Your final sentiment is the strongest and most resonant: "It can't be as simple as having them keep digital copies of all their work. The year would need to be thematically linked; there should be lots of revision and, when work needs to be assessed, there should be student choice (and perhaps a written reflection) of the strongest pieces."
Yes. I think this is key. Utilizing a tool like digital archives for ongoing learning would require us to reimagine the planning of our entire year and link materials thematically across units - which I think (it's one of the areas where Verdy and I agree) is an essential part of a curriculum.