Richardson, H.C., & Ward, R. (2005) Developing and Implementing a Methodology for Reviewing E-Portfolio Products, The Centre for Recording Acheivement

Richardson, H.C., & Ward, R. (2005) Developing and Implementing a Methodology for Reviewing E-Portfolio Products, The Centre for Recording Acheivement

The report focuses on the available e-portfolio products and begins to classify their designed uses. Within this are included tools for PDP (the majority are designed for this use), assessment management, and presentational tools. “We found that most systems have been developed for a particular age or stage of learning.” This also implies that the tools lack flexibility and are designed with specific uses in mind.

The findings reported also indicate that the majority of tools had low levels of personalisation in their functionality stating that, “very few systems currently support learner selected screen display preference settings.” (p.14) This was identified as a key issue and is significant in terms of student ownership of their content.

Blaikie, F., Schönau, D. & Steers, J. (2004) ‘Preparing for Portfolio Assessment in Art and Design: A Study of the Opinions and Experiences of Exiting Secondary School Students in Canada, England and The Netherlands’ International Journal of Art and Design Education, 23 (3), pp302-315

Blaikie, F., Schönau, D. & Steers, J. (2004) ‘Preparing for Portfolio Assessment in Art and Design: A Study of the Opinions and Experiences of Exiting Secondary School Students in Canada, England and The Netherlands’ International Journal of Art and Design Education, [online] 23 (3), pp302-315 Available at: http://web.ebscohost.com/ehost/pdf?vid=5&hid=7&sid=777a562f-9e26-4aa2-b4bd-69173d0ad022%40SRCSM2 (accessed 21 November 2007)

The authors aim to reveal what students see as important to them through analysis of quantitative questionnaire data canvassing student opinion and experiences of preparing portfolios for art and design assessment in secondary education. By the admission of the authors the findings described as tentative due to a low sample. However, the article findings do suggest student expectations may be affected by many things: location, gender and subject.

Downes, S. (2007) Web 2.0 and Your Own Learning Development [Online video presentation] Available at: http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-5431152345344515009 (accessed November 21 2007)

Downes, S. (2007) Web 2.0 and Your Own Learning Development [Online video presentation] Available at: http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-5431152345344515009 (accessed November 21 2007)

This online presentation characterises the principles upon which the author considers web 2.0 technologies to be based. These three underlying principles have connections with the social learning theories of other entries in this annotated bibliography (Lave & Wenger, 1991), (Mendoza et al., 2007). The three principles are:- Interaction: participation in communities of practice; Usability: the software must be easy to use and accessible; and Relevance: or salience. Most significantly, Downes describes the need for the user to own and personalise the spaces that they use, encouraging the bespoke selection of resources from the vast collective knowledge available through the World Wide Web. It is the skills associated with this selective process that are of particular interest when considering the links with user-driven e-portfolio software, whether it be for representational or reflective use.

Creative Review (2004) ‘How to get a Job’ Creative Review, Nov 2004, p37

Creative Review (2004) ‘How to get a Job’ Creative Review, Nov 2004, p37

Significantly, the article talks extensively about the use of traditional paper-based portfolios during interviews for jobs in the design sector. This goes against the other emerging idea of digital portfolios being used by graduates and employers aside of the interview period. The implication is that the physical portfolio is still seen as important; “…it is always good to include hard copies for the ‘feel factor’.”

The article also focuses on the need for graduates to tailor their portfolio for the individual company that they are aiming to gain employment with one interviewee stating that they are including information about how to do this on their website. “Candidates themselves can prepare by tailoring their portfolio to suit the job which they are up for.”

Butler, P. (2006) A Review of the Literature on Portfolios and Electronic Portfolios

Butler, P. (2006) A Review of the Literature on Portfolios and Electronic Portfolios [Online] Available at: https://eduforge.org/docman/view.php/ 176/1111/ePortfolio%20Project%20Research%20Report.pdf (accessed 23 July 2007)

2006 review of literature on e-portfolio research with some focus on art and design specific e-portfolio use. The most significant points emerging relate to the purpose and use of e-portfolios and from where these are driven. (Purposes: what an e-portfolio is designed for. Uses: What e-portfolios are actually used for.) Although there are several interpretations of the purposes of e-portfolios, they essentially range from, at one end of the scale, a process / learning portfolio to, at the other, representational / showcase.

Art and design specific analysis is based on a relatively small sample of literature but indicates a subject-oriented preconception that is also evident in other fields. For art and design this is that the portfolio is fundamentally a collection of visual work, often supported with reflective / explanatory information.” (Blaikie et al., 2004)

The review highlights benefits associated with electronic portfolios: skill development; evidence of learning; feedback; reflection; psychological benefits; assessment; artefacts; maintenance; portability and sharing. (p11)