[DG: Teaching & Learning] Learning Activities and Portfolios: time for a talk?
Keli Sato Amann
kamann at stanford.edu
Mon Mar 29 09:23:41 PDT 2010
Hi Lucy
I'm also interested in seeing Simonedes, perhaps in April after your March 31 launch.
I think your response was to the thread in general, but just in case it was directed at my original post, I wanted to say that I don't think we are too far apart in our understanding of Sakai 3, in terms of widgets and flexibility. The persona discussions are a way to understand what parts are rolling walls, and what's needs to be planned for in the architecture (placement of outlets and plumbing) so that we have to drilling a hole in our downstairs neighbor's ceiling down the road. The hope is to identify what's common to everyone and what's specialized and therefore needing to be tucked out of the way; grouping those needs into persona is a convenient way of talking about them.
I thank you for your expanded description of your approach to portfolios with it's flexible tagging. I can see how that would work. It reminds me of a joke about this woman cutting off the end of the ham for Thanksgiving dinner and her brother asks why she's doing that. She says that's what she saw their mom do every year. She assumed it did something --maybe a crispy skin or something. Their dad arrives for dinner and they ask him. He says--our pan was too small for the ham, so Mom always cut off the end.
I think it's a good story about challenging old ways of thinking when circumstances change, but I also have to wonder if the daughter's assumption was reasonable, even if it turned out to be unfounded. Not being familiar with portfolios except from personal experience (where it was more like the expressive type), I wonder if there are situations where a school or program would want standardized tags on certain pieces of student work. This would be for the school's, not the student's, benefit; the school could instantly pull student work together to demonstrate that students were meeting standards. But maybe the second question is, is that scenario within the realm of portfolios, or something else?
If you do end up having a demo, I'd like to come.
Regards,
Keli Amann
User Experience Specialist
Academic Computing Services, Stanford University
----- Original Message -----
From: "nate angell" <nate.angell at rsmart.com>
To: "Ray Davis" <ray at media.berkeley.edu>
Cc: pedagogy at collab.sakaiproject.org, sakai-ux at collab.sakaiproject.org
Sent: Friday, March 26, 2010 10:36:07 AM GMT -08:00 US/Canada Pacific
Subject: Re: [DG: Teaching & Learning] Learning Activities and Portfolios: time for a talk?
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"
_______________________________________________
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"
More information about the pedagogy
mailing list