E-portfolio standardization


Published on

Published in: Technology, Education
  • Be the first to comment

  • Be the first to like this

E-portfolio standardization

  1. 1. E-portfolio information: the case for standardization Simon Grant JISC CETIS UK CEN Workshop – Learning Technologies Brussels 2011-01-17
  2. 2. History – older <ul><li>2001: IMS LIP </li></ul><ul><ul><li>“ Learner Information Package” </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>sort of extended CV; not widely adopted </li></ul></ul><ul><li>2004: UKLeaP: tied to IMS LIP </li></ul><ul><ul><li>allowed for Personal Development Planning </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>was to have been a British Standard; but not adopted </li></ul></ul><ul><li>2005: IMS ePortfolio (eP): </li></ul><ul><ul><li>added extra features to IMS LIP; more complex </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>took on PDP structures </li></ul></ul><ul><li>Other initiatives did not take hold </li></ul>
  3. 3. History – more recent <ul><li>NL adopted their own profile of IMS ePortfolio (2009?) </li></ul><ul><li>On basis of UKLeaP failure, UK e-portfolio community believed IMS ePortfolio was too compromised (2006) </li></ul><ul><li>In UK, JISC/CETIS PIOP projects from 2007 </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Retained the useful insights from IMS LIP </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Aimed at simpler, Atom-based specification </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Soundly based on existing e-portfolio practice </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Fully agreed with current e-portfolio system developers </li></ul></ul><ul><li>Leap2A output by PIOP projects </li></ul><ul><ul><li>first full version 2009-04 </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>current version 2010-07 </li></ul></ul>
  4. 4. Related work to bear in mind <ul><li>Well-established Europass CV </li></ul><ul><ul><li>and mapping to HR-XML </li></ul></ul><ul><li>Learners may want to record courses in portfolios </li></ul><ul><ul><li>should coordinate with MLO </li></ul></ul><ul><li>Learners may want results provided by institutions </li></ul><ul><ul><li>should coordinate with EuroLMAI </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>already coordinated with MLO </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>envisaged new “Qualification Supplement” </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>to supersede Diploma and Certificate Supplements </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><li>Implies interest in all Europass instruments </li></ul>
  5. 5. Key motivation <ul><li>ISO/IEC JTC1 SC36 WG3 </li></ul><ul><ul><li>2010-08-03 “e-Portfolio Reference Model” </li></ul></ul><ul><li>Need to have European common model established to place clear marker on this global scene </li></ul><ul><li>MedBiquitous (American based, ANSI connected) Educational Trajectory is being based on Leap2A </li></ul><ul><li>With increasing personal international mobility, more important than ever to support transferring personal information </li></ul><ul><li>Need to inform other current and emerging initiatives, including CEDEFOP's current Europass work </li></ul>
  6. 6. Relational model <ul><li>a small example... </li></ul>course (activity) outcome (ability) achievement (good grade) assertion (entry) is evidence of has outcome supports claims personally defined resource (essay) has evidence
  7. 7. <ul><li>Based on established usage within partner portfolio systems </li></ul><ul><li>Includes requirements from the MedBiquitous “Educational Trajectory” </li></ul><ul><li>Atom's “entry” is used for general pieces of writing </li></ul><ul><li>Leap2A's refinements to “entry” (can degrade gracefully) </li></ul><ul><li>Attached files are “resources” </li></ul>Types of information in Leap2A <ul><li>entry </li></ul><ul><ul><li>ability </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>achievement </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>activity </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>meeting </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>affiliation </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>person </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>organization </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>resource </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>publication </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>selection </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>plan </li></ul></ul></ul>
  8. 8. Portfolio information -> Leap2A <ul><li>Blogs, logs, diaries -> plain entry </li></ul><ul><li>Record of anything useful -> resource </li></ul><ul><ul><li>publication as special case </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Can be linked to attached files </li></ul></ul><ul><li>Record of skill, competence etc. -> ability </li></ul><ul><li>Things that took time (jobs, courses) -> activity </li></ul><ul><ul><li>meeting as special case </li></ul></ul><ul><li>Things that will take time -> plan </li></ul><ul><li>Good things that have come about -> achievement </li></ul><ul><li>Structured presentations, CVs etc. -> selection </li></ul><ul><li>Also person , organization to hold information </li></ul>
  9. 9. Relationships (as in Leap2A) <ul><li>relation </li></ul><ul><ul><li>reflects on </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>has part </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>supports </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>has evidence </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>has agenda </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>has outcome </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>attended by </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>has reply </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Atom link relations </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>self </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>enclosure </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>related, etc. </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><li>(inverse ones) </li></ul><ul><ul><li>reflected on by </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>is part of </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>supported by </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>is evidence of </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>is agenda of </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>is outcome of </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>attends </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>in reply to </li></ul></ul>
  10. 10. About entries <ul><li>Entries have authors </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Atom allows plain text name, e-mail, URI </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>in Leap2A, URI can relate to separate person entry </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>personal details go in that “person” entry item </li></ul></ul><ul><li>Records created, modified at certain times </li></ul><ul><li>Achievements each have one date of achievement </li></ul><ul><li>Plans each have a target date of completion </li></ul><ul><li>Activities, meetings have start and end dates </li></ul><ul><li>Some things may have locations </li></ul><ul><li>This “metadata” is recorded “literally” </li></ul><ul><ul><li>rather than by a relationship to another item “blob” </li></ul></ul>
  11. 11. Abilities are of great interest <ul><li>(skill, competence, learning outcome, etc.) </li></ul><ul><ul><li>People aim to acquire them through learning </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>They may be assessed </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>People claim to have them </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Qualifications may be evidence of them </li></ul></ul><ul><li>There need to be impersonal definitions, that </li></ul><ul><ul><li>can be subject of goals </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>can be subject of claims or assertions </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>can be built up into skills frameworks </li></ul></ul><ul><li>Ability is representable in Leap2A </li></ul><ul><ul><li>possible to define within the portfolio information itself </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>but better as a linked external definition with separate spec </li></ul></ul>
  12. 12. Wider requirements <ul><li>Same ideas could apply to any systems with learner-owned information </li></ul><ul><li>Not information gathered about learners by others </li></ul><ul><li>What are the potentially relevant systems? </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Many possibilities, not fully explored yet </li></ul></ul><ul><li>Need to create a model that brings together different usage and established specifications </li></ul><ul><ul><li>May have several bindings; respect existing IP by avoiding other established bindings </li></ul></ul>
  13. 13. Unifying Leap2A & IMS eP (etc.) <ul><li>Could keep separate, and do (XSLT) transforms </li></ul><ul><li>Coordination – several options: </li></ul><ul><ul><li>IMS could allow Leap2A as alternative to IMS LIP in IMS eP </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Maybe a complete mapping between IMS eP and Leap2A </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>this may involve extending or modifying either </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>then define full transforms both ways </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>at which point which is used no longer matters </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Work towards a common model of Leap2A & NL IMS eP </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>which would imply harmony at the RDF level even if not complete mapping </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Collaborate with mapping both to HR-XML </li></ul></ul>
  14. 14. Finally... <ul><li>Thanks for your attention </li></ul><ul><li>If there is time, questions and discussion? </li></ul><ul><li>Leap2A is at http://www.leapspecs.org/2A/ </li></ul>