Edwards, G. (2005) Connecting PDP to Employer Needs and the World of Work, The Higher Education Academy

Edwards, G. (2005) Connecting PDP to Employer Needs and the World of Work, The Higher Education Academy

The author summarises research undertaken in 2000 and refers to the research question, “In what ways can personal development planning be implemented in HEIs to be of maximum benefit in recruitment processes and later career mangement?”

Indications reported are that employers are interested in seeing the documented process that has been facilitated by PDP, not the outputs, suggesting that this mode (PDP) is not an intrinsic desirable. Nonetheless, the report begins to define competencies based on responses from graduate employers. These are generic, and at the top of the list come flexibility, adaptability and capacity to cope with change; self-motivation and drive; analytical ability and decision making; and communication and interpersonal skills.

Drew, S., Stevens, A. & Haughton, P. (2007) Electronic PDPs for Art, Design and Media: Their Use and their Assessment, Sheffield Hallam University

Drew, S., Stevens, A. & Haughton, P. (2007) Electronic PDPs for Art, Design and Media: Their Use and their Assessment, Sheffield Hallam University [Online report] Available at: www.shu.ac.uk/research/cre/Electronic%20PDP/Website/base%20model/CasestudyD&T%20amended.doc (accessed July 20 2007)

The focus on electronic personal development portfolios is made clear from the outset, and the case studies that have driven the research findings acknowledge this. The work identified some key findings from consultation with employers in relevant fields. This included the emergence that there was an increasing trend for applicants to make first contact via email, but that employers do not view a portfolio until interview.

It also emerged from the employer perspective that portfolios needed to be focussed in order for them to stand out from the crowd, show individuality and emphasise originality and creativity. It was also suggested that PDP content was, although not expected by employers, generally found to be occurring in employees and was seen as a personal activity. A tension also emerged between worked presented being of potential commercial value.

There is some ambiguity about the role of PDP for employability, and although the report does discuss PDP with employers, it highlights the gap between PDP in education and for employment purposes, stating, “E-PDP tends to be located on professional practice modules.”

Spendlove, D. & Hopper, M. (2006) ‘Using ‘Electronic Portfolios’ to Challenge Current Orthodoxies in the Presentation of an Initial Teacher Training Design and Technology Activity’ International Journal of Technology & Design Education

Spendlove, D. & Hopper, M. (2006) ‘Using ‘Electronic Portfolios’ to Challenge Current Orthodoxies in the Presentation of an Initial Teacher Training Design and Technology Activity’ International Journal of Technology & Design Education, [online] 16 (2), pp177-191 Available at: http://web.ebscohost.com/ehost/pdf?vid=4&hid=101&sid=2bdd4244-5c85-48ae-9785-f6e19a7cfad4%40SRCSM2 (accessed 24 July 2007)

Spendlover and Hopper’s article describes the way that they see the use of e-portfolios for presenting an initial teacher training design and technology activity. As such, the content has a significant emphasis on presentation of a design process. In this context, the authors state that the primary use for an e-portfolio is for “reflective, design practice within a structured educational design challenge.”

Additionally, there is recognition of this output being of use in terms of employability, so it’s significance related to our wider context is of presentation of capabilities for employability. Interestingly, the findings report that “The majority of undergraduates within the group had completed courses at Advanced level in their chosen discipline and arrived at university with a firmly established perception of the ‘legitimised’ purpose, content and mode of presentation of the ‘design portfolio’.” (p.181) This adds substance to the understanding that practitioners are heavily influenced by their subject culture, and here, as to what they see as culturally (subject) valid for their peer and employer networks.

Lane, C. (2007) The Power of ‘E’: Using E-Portfolios to Build Online Presentation Skills Innovate: Journal of Online Education

Lane, C. (2007) The Power of ‘E’: Using E-Portfolios to Build Online Presentation Skills Innovate: Journal of Online Education [Online] Avaiable at: http://innovateonline.info/index.php?view=article&id=369 (accessed December 3 2007)

Lane introduces this paper by describing the tension of comparing paper-based portfolios to e-portfolios suggesting that this comparison alone is an inadequate way of demonstrating the potential of an e-portfolio. She also mentions that, at the other end of the scale, “in contrast to online environments [web 2.0 – social networks], e-portfolios provide academic and professional web spaces.”, and takes time in the article to differentiate the two.

The article also voices some interesting observations that seem to stem largely from attention being paid to the student perspective. It suggests the skills which students think an e-portfolio will help them develop are actually multimedia and web design skills. These presentational facets are acknowledged by the author, “The software employed must offer some level of student control over design.” Lane goes on to say, “If students are able to choices in the development of their e-portfolio – either scaffolded by a tool that provides options or in a freeform authoring environment – they have a valuable opportunity to learn how to best present themselves and their work.”

Gillham, B. & McGilp, H. (2007) ‘Recording the Creative Process: An Empirical Basis for Practice-Integrated Research in the Arts’ International Journal of Art and Design Education, 26 (2), pp177-184

Gillham, B. & McGilp, H. (2007) ‘Recording the Creative Process: An Empirical Basis for Practice-Integrated Research in the Arts’ International Journal of Art and Design Education, 26 (2), pp177-184

The article explores the use of ‘creative process journals’ (CPJs) to record the practice-integrated research activity in the creative arts as a formal research tool. Although the emphasis is on how this concept can be used for research purposes, there are clear fundamental parallels between this and creative portfolios in terms of practitioners, and presentation of process. As a caveat to that statement however, the authors state that their discussion is discrete to that of journals “primarily concerned with ‘reflection’ and self-analysis.” (p.178) Instead they talk about the “detailed description to provide the raw data for critical interpretation.”

The authors comment on the differences between research through synthesis and through analysis, suggesting that art and design researchers are inclined to the former. The function of the CPJ therefore would be to provide an account for which analytical interpretation can occur. Within this, there are experiences identified that relate to the need for accurate representation of journal content in order for the analysis to take place in context.

Dillon, S. & Brown, A. (2006) ‘The Art of E-Portfolios: Insights from the Creative Arts Experience’ In Jafari, A. & Kaufman, C. (Eds.) Handbook of Research on E-Portfolios pp420-433 Hershey, PA: Idea Group Reference

Dillon, S. & Brown, A. (2006) ‘The Art of E-Portfolios: Insights from the Creative Arts Experience’ In Jafari, A. & Kaufman, C. (Eds.) Handbook of Research on E-Portfolios pp420-433 Hershey, PA: Idea Group Reference

The authors aim to examine the creative production context in order to reveal challenges potentially encountered using portfolios in the creative arts through case studies in diverse creative fields. Initially there is an acknowledgement of the “intensive media-rich nature of creative production contexts” being a significant challenge for electronic portfolio use. The article goes on to describe the generic elements of traditional creative arts portfolios to represent the intrinsic creative processes associated:

“When creative product and experience are textualised, the explanation is privileged over a representation of the knowledge itself in its original symbolic form. Artefacts of artistic practice can be organized into a system that documents creative practice in a way that combines both the experience of the work and the explanation of the work to provide a rigorous, accountable, and compelling presentation of the work.” (p.421)

The trend for multimedia richness made possible and driven by technology, is suggested to “level the playing field” for contexts beyond the creative arts (there is a historical and cultural tendency for prioritising text and numerical modes of description). The authors highlight ways in which multimedia can be utilised to extrude metaphors for creative arts, citing music and the performing arts’ temporal nature as being well suited to such outputs.

A key question raised is; “Is the artefact of the production sufficiently representative of the quality of the work?” A focus on understanding subjects and the tools and processes intrinsic to them is provided as a basis for a solution; “Understanding the ways of knowing within a discipline is critical to the effective use of ePortfolios, and understanding within creative arts is tightly bound with the mediums of those practices.” (p.431)

Mehanna, W.N. (2004) ‘E-Pedagogy: The Pedagogies of E-Learning’ ALT-J, 12 (3), pp279-293

Mehanna, W.N. (2004) ‘E-Pedagogy: The Pedagogies of E-Learning’ ALT-J, 12 (3), pp279-293

Mehanna develops a taxonomy of pedagogical traits through a grounded research approach. Findings are triangulated with an existing classification of pedagogies, research findings (29 effective practices) and theoretical backing. Of the pedagogic behaviours listed, non-linguistic presentation seems to bear relevance to the use of e-portfolios, suggesting that this is has a cognitive foundation.