[DG: Teaching & Learning] Learning Activities and Portfolios: time for a talk?

[nate.angell at rsmart.com]

Lucy:

I also found your post promising and inspiring. I encourage you all at  
NYU to share more of the valuable work you are doing.

This thread touches on something that I have long felt has slowed  
portfolio adoption and use in Sakai.

To be overly simplistic, I see portfolio as having four main  
activities that can be seen as a kind of lifecycle.

1) Collecting, authoring and reflecting

2) Sharing and conversing

3) Relating and evaluating (to other learning/social practices)

4) Reporting, synthesizing, and analyizing

Sakai portfolio tools—along with a lot of other major portfolio tools 
—have never really provided a satisfying experience for number 1  
above. So above all, I believe the first priority for portfolio  
capabilities in Sakai 3 should be to provide a satisfying basic  
experience for portfolio authors. Everything else is a secondary  
priority.

Fortunately, it seems the basic authoring capabilities of Sakai 3 will  
take us a long way towards that first priority.

Sakai portfolio tools have also fallen short on providing good  
pathways for number 4 above. So just as the lack of satisfying  
authoring tools has hampered user adoption and use, the lack of  
satisfying reporting tools has hampered institutional adoption and  
use. I know less about basic reporting capabilities in Sakai 3, but I  
would hope that they are able to leapfrog Sakai 2's reporting  
complexities.

Sakai 2 has focused a lot of effort on portfolio activities in numbers  
2-3 above, but because it's hard to get stuff in and take things out,  
they often end up a barren, bloated middle.

It's as if Sakai portfolio tools have so far been thin on both ends  
and fat in the middle. We should work to make the Sakai 3 portfolio  
experience fat on both ends and thin in the middle: moving from the  
tuber to the hourglass.

- Nate

On Mar 26, 2010, at 7:47 AM, Ray Davis <ray at media.berkeley.edu> wrote:

> That's great news, Lucy -- this is the sort of
> small-pieces-loosely-joined flexibility I've been hoping would  
> emerge in
> Sakai 3, but I had no idea that NYU had advanced so far so quickly!
> Speaking as a developer rather than an instructor, I hope some of  
> these
> early samples can be shared with the community.
>
> I recently learned from our (non-Sakai-using) friend Tom Lewis that  
> his
> team at U. Washington has begun experimenting successfully with Google
> Sites integration to allow similar flexibility between resources
> associated with locally-managed course enrollments and
> personally-managed resources on Google. I suspect it won't be long
> before some intrepid team starts similar experimentation on a Sakai 3
> foundation.
>
> Best,
> Ray
>
> On 3/25/10 11:48 AM, Lucile G Appert wrote:
>> As I have watched this discussion (along with those around the  
>> spreadsheet and portfolios in general) develop, I’ve been feeling  
>> more and more the need for some clarity about what Sakai 3 is and  
>> how that differs from Sakai 2 as well as standard LMS. In an earli 
>> er post John Norman mentioned that NYU is looking at a different a 
>> pproach to portfolios, one that keeps them within the system where 
>>  course and project sites are located, and I’d like to share what  
>> that looks like as well as our rationale for adopting it.
>>
>> First, a few observations about the conversations at hand. At NYU,  
>> we are getting ready to do the first Sakai 3 pilot, a QA  
>> environment for faculty that opens March 31. What we know about  
>> Sakai 3, and in fact the reason we were able to put together a  
>> collaboration between ITS and academic units to develop it, is that  
>> it gets rid of many of the issues that hamper standard LMS  
>> development. Here’s why: instead of “baking in” a lot of  
>> features/tools, it allows users (in every category from institutio 
>> ns to individuals) to incorporate these as needed in the form of w 
>> idgets or templates that do not affect the basic system architectu 
>> re. I often use this analogy -- Sakai 3 is a like a loft into whic 
>> h users can deploy and retract folding walls (templates, widgets)  
>> to make rooms as needed. While the loft helps support these walls, 
>>  building or taking them down does not affect the loft's structure.
>>
>> One thing that has puzzled me about the some of the user needs  
>> discussions is that many issues seem to actually be template and  
>> widget issues that can be solved on the school, department, or even  
>> individual level. A small group of these needs will likely  
>> influence larger architectural decisions such as how tags or groups  
>> are handled (internally or externally), or permissions, and the  
>> persona discussions are important for bringing that out. However,  
>> it might be better to foreground that focus so that people don’t g 
>> et distracted from the real discussion.
>>
>> In the case of our Simonides portfolio tool, it is embedded in just  
>> one page in a Sakai 3 site owned by a student and to which his or  
>> her advisors/professors have access. In addition to the option of  
>> having a portfolio site, we will also give everyone at NYU a  
>> Networking project site with an NYU Network page as the default  
>> opening page and the potential to create other pages.
>>
>> The basis of our portfolio is a visual organization plan (with a  
>> selection of templates) that overlays a traditional file  
>> structure.  On every level there is the opportunity for instructor/ 
>> advisor comment. Our goal is to give students a space to save all  
>> the materials they consider important from their course and co- 
>> curricular work and to be able to rework them into new documents in  
>> the Simonides site using the standard page creation tool. Moreoer,  
>> we believe letting students create the portfolio’s organizational  
>> structure for themselves can be as much of a learning exercise and 
>>  diagnostic tool as the items they are arranging.
>>
>> This freer structure means that we are not concerned with “baking  
>> in” assessment tools like matrices. The truth is, with a good tagg 
>> ing tool, you don’t need to focus on matrices and where to build t 
>> hem in. You just need to focus on developing the meta tool and the 
>> n let people customize and deploy it for varied purposes.
>>
>> In fact, building complicated assessment matrices into the system  
>> may be counterproductive.  For example, NYU’s Nursing School is pa 
>> rt of our Sakai 3 initiative and while they want a portfolio-type  
>> tool geared to the accreditation standards their students must dem 
>> onstrate, experience has taught them that they also need a flexibl 
>> e way to generate the matrices for assessment. Accreditation stand 
>> ards change, sometimes from year to year, and it makes more sense  
>> for students to have a body of tagged work from which they can gen 
>> erate assessment matrices than to build matrices into the system a 
>> nd have to change the whole system each time standards change.
>>
>> We’ve also made our Simonides portfolio into a Collections Widget  
>> for Sakai 3 that anyone can pull into a site and create a folder-s 
>> tructured collection within. That means that you can actually mode 
>> l mini-portfolios and have students create them in classes.
>>
>> The upshot of this example is that in Sakai 3, portfolios do not  
>> have to be their own add-on, auxiliary spaces that require deeply  
>> customized tools and practices. Rather, they, like course sites and  
>> many other previously “specialized” functionalities, can coexist  
>> in the same basic academic network.
>>
>> Intellectually, they already do, and the time is ripe for a  
>> technology like Sakai 3 that reflects that continuum rather than  
>> disrupts it.
>>
>> Best,
>>
>> Lucy
>> ____________________
>> Lucy Appert, PhD
>> Associate Director of Educational Technology
>> Liberal Studies Program
>> New York University
>> 726 Broadway, Rm. 632
>> New York, NY 10003
>> (212) 998-7168
>> lucy.appert at nyu.edu
>>
>> ----- Original Message -----
>> From: Michael Feldstein<michael.feldstein at oracle.com>
>> Date: Friday, March 19, 2010 2:36 pm
>> Subject: Re: [DG: Teaching&  Learning] [DG: User Experience]  
>> Teaching&  Learning] Learning Activities and Portfolios: time for a  
>> talk?
>> To: Jacques Raynauld<jacques.raynauld at hec.ca>, pedagogy at collab.sakaiproject.org 
>> , sakai-ux at collab.sakaiproject.org, portfolio at collab.sakaiproject.org
>>
>>
>>> On the one hand, I think supporting these sorts of rich uses is
>>> important. On the other hand, too heavy an emphasis on these use  
>>> cases
>>> is exactly what has killed many an ePortfolio initiative (both
>>> development and adoption). In my opinion, competency/learning
>>> objective assignment should be a pluggable service. Schools that  
>>> need
>>> only a simple version should get the simple version. Schools that  
>>> want
>>> something richer (and therefore more complex), should be able to  
>>> have
>>> that too. But let's not design our entire ePortfolio vision around  
>>> the
>>> most elaborate and difficult to implement scenarios that often  
>>> require
>>> unrealistically large changes in the academic culture of a school.
>>>
>>>  Given the high number of abject failures and relative dearth of
>>> smashing successes in the ePortfolio space, I think it is critical
>>> that we stick to articulating first principles and identifying
>>> fundamental building blocks that could be scaled to a rich and  
>>> complex
>>> evaluation environment but don't assume or require it.
>>>
>>>  - m
>>>
>>>
>>>   Oracle Email Signature Logo
>>>  Michael Feldstein | Principal Product Manager| 818-817-2925
>>>  Oracle Higher Education Product Development
>>>  25 Christian Hill Road | Great Barrington, MA 01230
>>>
>>>
>>>  -----Original Message-----
>>>  From: Jacques Raynauld [mailto:jacques.raynauld at hec.ca]
>>>  Sent: Friday, March 19, 2010 2:22 PM
>>>  To: pedagogy at collab.sakaiproject.org;
>>> sakai-ux at collab.sakaiproject.org; portfolio at collab.sakaiproject.org
>>>  Subject: Re: [DG: User Experience] [DG: Teaching&  Learning]  
>>> Teaching
>>> &  Learning] Learning Activities and Portfolios: time for a talk?
>>>
>>>  To all of you that have contributed to the interesting discussion  
>>> on
>>> Learning Activities and Portfolios: time for a talk?
>>>
>>>  1.  I certainly approuve of the idea of  integrating more closely  
>>> the
>>>
>>>  LMS and Portfolios systems.   At the Université de Montréal and 
>>>  also
>>>
>>>  some  European universities (Lausanne), we see new specialized  
>>> master
>>> programs being redesigned from the start  using a completely
>>> integrated Module/Portfolio approach with a strong program
>>> competency/learning outcomes flavour.  A typical module would  
>>> include
>>> learning outcomes, learning activites (readings, exercices, etc.)  
>>> and
>>> broad type assignments with reflexive components normally found in
>>> portfolios (matrix views are also planned).  This is not the future,
>>> it is being designed right now with few tools available to support
>>> these approaches.
>>>
>>>  2.  People have mentioned some tools (goal management) that could  
>>> be
>>> used to link assigments or activities to learning
>>> outcomes/competencies.  It is a good  start but we need to approach
>>> this problem in a much more comprehensive manner.  In some work we  
>>> are
>>> currently doing for École Polytechnique in Montreal in the conte 
>>> xt of
>>> the CDIO Syllabus (a detailed competency-based description for
>>> engineering), we face the following challenge. For some courses, the
>>> broad learning outcomes/competencies (say level 1 granularity) are
>>> going to be set by the instructor or most likely by the university  
>>> at
>>> the course level.  Based on a list of pre-assigned  learning
>>> outcomes/competencies, instructors could set finer grain learning
>>> outcomes/competencies (say level 1.1 or 1.1.1) which are are
>>> pedagogically more relevant for the activities or assignments
>>> undertaken.  This is the top-dowm approach.  Another possibility is
>>> the bottom-up approach :  competencies/learning outcomes could be  
>>> set
>>> at the activities/assignments level and then added up  
>>> automatically at
>>> the course level.
>>>
>>>  3. This kind of more complex learning outcomes/competencies
>>> integration might not be usual now but it very likely to sprawl in  
>>> the
>>> near future.
>>>  The CDIO initiative for engineering (http://ec.europa.eu/education/lifelong-learning-policy/doc44_en.htm 
>>> ),
>>>  some U.S. initiatives including the Lumina Foundation project in
>>> Indiana  and some others states
>>> (http://chronicle.com/blogPost/Tuning-American-Higher-Ed/6774/), all
>>> point to some expanded functionalities that should be part of  
>>> Sakai 3,
>>> most likely in a structured-page environment.
>>>
>>>  This is a very interesting challenge for the community.
>>>
>>>  Jacques Raynauld
>>>  HEC Montréal
>>>  Open Syllabus team
>>>
>>>
>>>  Yes, it is great to see this conversation develop and to see the
>>> direction it is taking. An LMS that allows for the types of  
>>> functions
>>> that have traditionally been associated only with portfolios would  
>>> be
>>> a wonderful development for us and probably a lot of other
>>> institutions because it would bring in best practices like learning
>>> objectives tied to assessment through rubrics or other methods and
>>> make them more common and central to teaching and learning. Learning
>>> activities like reflection and storage, selection and presentation  
>>> of
>>> student work could be a more integral part of the learning  
>>> experience
>>> for more students. Instead of having two separate systems (LMS&
>>> portfolio) to work through, both students and faculty would simply
>>> learn and use one unified robust and flexible system.
>>>
>>>  The institution would also benefit by only having one system to  
>>> fund
>>> and maintain plus the system would offer the ability for the
>>> institution to gather institutional level reporting data for
>>> accreditation and other administrative assessment needs. That may  
>>> be a
>>> lot to expect at this point, but it can be a goal we work toward  
>>> if we
>>> think it is a worthwhile idea.
>>>
>>>  -Salwa
>>>
>>>  Salwa Khan
>>>  sk16 at txstate.edu
>>>  Coordinator, IT Projects
>>>  Instructional Technologies Support
>>>  Texas State University
>>>  512 245-4390
>>>
>>>  ______________________________________
>>>  From: pedagogy-bounces at collab.sakaiproject.org
>>> [pedagogy-bounces at collab.sakaiproject.org] On Behalf Of Zaldivar,  
>>> Marc
>>> [mzaldiva at vt.edu]
>>>  Sent: Friday, March 19, 2010 8:05 AM
>>>  To: pedagogy Learning; sakai-ux; portfolio
>>>  Subject: Re: Teaching&  Learning] [DG: User Experience] Learning
>>> Activities and Portfolios: time for a talk?
>>>
>>>  Keli, et al,
>>>
>>>  This is a wonderful conversation, and I'm glad to see it shaping up
>>> in such concrete detail.
>>>
>>>  On 3/18/10 7:11 PM, "Keli Sato Amann"<kamann at stanford.edu>  wrote:
>>>
>>>  The concern that prompted me to write was another situation: when
>>> program objectives have been mapped down to a course, when those
>>> objectives are actually attached to particular activities, and  
>>> when an
>>> activity is graded according to those objectives. In this case,
>>> students don't have a choice of what maps to each aptitude--it's  
>>> been
>>> specified for them. The work to be featured would be chosen by the
>>> instructor or department. An example might be a department that  
>>> needs
>>> to prove that at least 90% of their students meet certain criteria  
>>> by
>>> the end of the year-they use the results of certain assignments or
>>> tests in particular classes to demonstrate this.
>>>
>>>  Is this situation actually within the portfolio domain? Do those  
>>> who
>>> build portfolios need objectives mapped so discretely and for this
>>> reason or is this a separate area of concern? Lynn said that stating
>>> objectives for activities is a desirable thing, but that might  
>>> just be
>>> because it's always good for students to know why you are asking  
>>> them
>>> to do something and because it's always good to state objectives for
>>> any project so you can measure their later success.
>>>
>>>  I thought this point and question you made, Keli, was one I could
>>> comment on.  I do absolutely believe the functionality underlying  
>>> the
>>> departmental/institutional-assessment type of portfolio is within  
>>> the
>>> portfolio domain.  The outputs are quite different, but the source
>>> material underneath of it is the same.  A student would want to see
>>> various representations of her own work, created for different
>>> audiences (public and private).  Departmental administrators would
>>> like to see larger collections, but often of very similar material  
>>> for
>>> assessment, but in more summary-based form rather than individual
>>> webpages.  Teachng faculty, I find, are right between: they often  
>>> want
>>> to be able to access summary-type information for purposes of  
>>> grading
>>> and evaluation, but they enjoy the individual view of a student's
>>> webpage portfolio when thinking about feedback on materials.   For  
>>> me,
>>> it all fits in at different levels of the same process of collect,
>>> select, reflect, connect... The stude
>>>   nt-level portfolios we've been discussing so far are often  
>>> "guided"
>>> at some level by the curriculum that the student is a part of.  For
>>> some programs, that guidance is heavy-handed; for others, it's much
>>> broader.  In either case, we've been encouraging programs to  
>>> consider
>>> three types of portfolios before deciding which arrangement of
>>> tools/materials/outputs are best for them (without detail, we use
>>> something like the terms "assessment portfolio," "learning  
>>> portfolio"
>>> and "professional development portfolio" as we discuss the  
>>> arrangement
>>> of tools and outputs with programs; most programs end up with a  
>>> blend
>>> of goals from these three).  These determine whether we feature a
>>> matrix, a presentation template, develop reflection prompts or
>>> evaluation/feedback forms, and all sorts of other factors of  
>>> portfolio
>>> deployment.
>>>
>>>  I guess my point to this is that as we move forward with the notion
>>> that portfolio-like activity is connected to a lot of other activity
>>> in the system, then what we are thinking of is making sure that the
>>> options for goal management, assignment and reflection upon
>>> assignment, and sharing materials with various audiences (in various
>>> presentation modes) are central to Sakai 3.  Those are at the  
>>> heart of
>>> all of our portfolio activity, regardless of which tools we deploy.
>>> That's why tools like a blog and even tests and quizzes should
>>> potentially be available as part of a group or individual's  
>>> portfolio:
>>> if we focus on the collection, selection, and connection of student
>>> and instructor data, then we're doing portfolio, IMHO.
>>>
>>>  I ultimately agree with your assertion that it's good to encourage
>>> the best practice in the way the tools are put together.  Just by
>>> having an optional place to connect an assignment to an  
>>> institutional
>>> or departmental goal would encourage many to explore the  
>>> advantages of
>>> this for themselves and for the students, for example.  We have a  
>>> lot
>>> of institutional effort being put into pedagogical training of all  
>>> of
>>> our faculty, so it would certainly help many of our groups support  
>>> the
>>> grassroots effort to improve assessment, student learning, and
>>> fruitful technology adoption.
>>>
>>>  Marc
>>>
>>>
>>>  --
>>>  Marc Zaldivar, Ph.D.
>>>                2210A Torgersen Hall
>>>  Director, Virginia Tech Electronic Portfolio Initiatives
>>> Blacksburg, VA 24061-0292
>>>  Learning Technologies
>>>             540.231.8994
>>>  Virginia Tech
>>>                      marcz at vt.edu
> _______________________________________________
> pedagogy mailing list
> pedagogy at collab.sakaiproject.org
> http://collab.sakaiproject.org/mailman/listinfo/pedagogy
>
> TO UNSUBSCRIBE: send email to pedagogy-unsubscribe at collab.sakaiproject.org 
>  with a subject of "unsubscribe"