Talk:Electronic portfolio

I'm the author of the text originally contained on http://www.europortfolio.org. Serge 12:25, 21 Nov 2003 (UTC)

---

To put this page into more of an encyclopedic style, I think it should include information on what bodies define the ePortfolio standards it mentions, how many standards there are, how long this thing has been around, who is using it, and that kind of thing. As it stands it is a definition, but it doesn't put the topic into the context of the rest of the universe. Without that context information, it's impossible for the uninformed reader to see whether ePortfolios are actually interesting or important - the reader can't tell whether they are totally irrelevant because nobody uses them, or vitally important because half the universities in the world use nothing else. Onebyone 11:29, 21 Nov 2003 (UTC)

---

Thank you very much for your helpful comment. Since my first attempt, I've had the time to browse through the different style manuals, and realised that, as you wrote, it's more a dictionary entry, and completely lacked context -- it's kind of ironic as I'm the advocate of context management systems over content management system. As I've already written several articles on the subject, I'll try to make something at the same time concise and informative.

What I'll also do is ask fellow ePortfolio specialists to work with me on a good (series of) article(s).

One question though (if you ever come back to this page): when I use a text I've written myself (or in collaboration with a direct colleague) is making a statement in the talk page sufficient or are there other procedures. After reading the documentation and FAQs, this is still not clear to me. Serge 12:25, 21 Nov 2003 (UTC)

Making the statement here is sufficient unless someone decides for some reason not to believe you (which isn't entirely unreasonable since there's nothing on Wikipedia that proves who you are). I'm not sure what happens in that situation, I'd guess that they will independently contact the website in question for confirmation. Onebyone 15:13, 21 Nov 2003 (UTC)

Yes, that's exactly what I did, and can, therefore, confirm that Serge is the original author of the work, and is able to release it under the GFDL. I've merged the temp page with the original article, so that the original is now here. Angela 18:44, 21 Nov 2003 (UTC)

That's excellent, but when I add something I've written elswhere, is there a way I can make the job of administrators such as you Angela easier ? Should I modify the original Internet file, to includes the GFDL statement?

That would be a great idea. Angela 21:34, 21 Nov 2003 (UTC)

---

copyright

Just in case, I hold the copyright of the material, orginally published in the LiKE newsletter (www.eife-l.org/like).Serge 13:04, 21 Nov 2003 (UTC)

I moved the above from the article - such things are better on the talk page. Angela 18:46, 21 Nov 2003 (UTC)

Suggestions for a major revision

Reviewing the Electronic Portfolio entry, I belive that it might be improved in seveal ways.

First, some decision needs to be made about re-factoring some portfolio definitions out of this entry, in favor of the portfolio (education) entry and second, a broader recognition of the current landscape of tools to implement an electronic portfolio should be examined.

Refactoring. The three main types of ePorfolios described are really types of portfolios and probably should be addressed on that page. (I personally would describe these types of portfolios more in terms of three actions by portfolio authors (collect, select, reflect). What might usefully be retained would be a discussion of how electronic portfolios enable or augment each of the three types. I'm thinking for example of a mentor commenting on reflections, or of peer critique.

An idea that helps distinquish a portfolio from an electronic impelmentation of a portfolio is the latter can separate two functions: repository and presentation. (Perhaps it would be useful to recognize that several of the functions of an electronic portfolio map directly to content management systems.) Individual portfolio artifacts can be collected in the repository and then presented, singly or multiply in one or more different presentations for different audiences. This flexibilty is one of the distinguishing features of the electronic implementation.

Landscape of tools. The implication of the article is that there are a few standards-based eportfolio applications. That is true, there are, to varying degrees, standards, and also by degrees, software applications that implement them. However, the emphasis on standards and iteroperability is only one dimension of the landscape to consider. There are other tools that have 'emergent' portfolio properties, and bear mention in this article. An example would be a "blog." While weak as a content managment system, blogs have the property of being highly connected via Ping/Trackback such that the communication about the elements in the blog-portfolio is facilitated. Wiki can also serve as a portfolio, consider the "my contributions" feature of MediaWiki. What is interesting in both the blog and wiki examples is that the portfolio artifacts (and largely the presentation) are being created as a by-products of ongoing work in a tool. Nils peterson 23:59, 1 August 2005 (UTC)

I agree 100% about the "types" section. These aren't the main types. Types include Working, Learning, Advising, Professional, and Assessment portfolios. There is overlap between these types. Collecting, Selecting and Reflecting are the typical ways the actions are described. I'd like to see TYpes and Actions sections in the revision and will gladly contribute to this as I am currently developing faculty training materials for my employer.

204.249.68.152 17:42, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

The Usage Section is too Promotional--not Neutral

It should be written from a more neutral point of view--the section should focus on intended utility and not sound like a sales pitch. It could even be deleted, since it is adequately described in other sections. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 143.200.142.130 (talk) 14:30, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Pedantry

"

1. use sans-serif fonts
2. use typical font types (Times New Roman, Verdana, Arial, etc.)

"

Times New Roman is a serif font...

As a web developer, I must point out that "typical font types", from the POV of web development, are really, "sans-serif", "serif", and "monospace". Font names (e.g. "Verdana") have no place in a web page aiming for broad usability.

Additionally, "Browser safe colors" is no longer an issue in today's browsers. Whoever wrote the section on web design considerations appeared to have been writing from the POV of ten years ago.

I'd actually suggest that the entire section on design considerations doesn't belong here. It's like looking at an entry for "car" and finding a huge section devoted to paint finish options...

Why should we do this

This portfolio is pointless. I feel that we the students dont need to show what we learned 3 times every year. We all ready do the mid-terms and the final exams, so why should we have to make a profolio showing the work we did in class. It's like makeing a folder to show your parents what you learned in school today. I for one think this is possably the dumbest idea ever thought up, its right up there with the war in Iraq and the Articles of Confederation. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 158.123.138.50 (talk) 15:04, 13 December 2006 (UTC).

I agree that the article comes off sounding like a sales pitch -- not neutral. How about some data on the supposed benefits of e-portfolios in education, including scientific studies proving that e-portfolios aid student learning in some way. Is there, in fact, any such thing? Also, how about some criticism of e-portfolios as being potentially just another educational fad that will inevitably go the way of countless other educational fads such as "the one-room schoolhouse"? I think there is far more to e-portfolios than the feel-good hype that is being trumpeted in this article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.9.34.156 (talk) 15:41, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Lists of external links

(The following discussion was moved from my talk page after I deleted a list of external links from the body of the article, deeming it linkspam. =Axlq 14:42, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

Showing the available and popular examples of an electronic portfolio is not link spam. These are in fact useful examples of what the theoretically focused text in the article is speaking about. Virtual experience is lived experience; It is different than the physical world. Would you delete a photo of a dolphin from the entry on dolphins? No. Why not? That is the same reason you should leave the linked examples to "electronic" portfolios in the external links section. Thanks, sgoggins. Sgoggins (talk) 19:38, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

Kindly review Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not. In this instance, Wikipedia is not web directory of external links, and it is not an indiscriminate collection of information. The examples presented by those sites are unnecessary and detract from the quality of the article. If those sites aren't notable enough to have their own articles, there is no need to link to them. =Axlq 04:08, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

Kindly review Wikipedia:Wikipedia_is_an_encyclopedia . Next, check the wikipedia entry for Wikipedia:Sociotechnical_systems_theory . After reflection, you will recognize that your training and passion for recognizing link spam requires some adaptation when the very entry under consideration is the discussion of something "electronic". I hope you are more of a judge than a police officer; That you see your role as helping to develop the culture of wikipedia appropriately, and not simply to act in response to what you first see. The entry you are editing incorrectly is for ELECTRONIC portfolios. These are real things, but in the virtual world. The theoretically well substantiated points in the article are interesting, but actually tell you very little about what an ELECTRONIC portfolio is. In order to comply with the wikipedia rules that indicate wikipedia is not a directory, or a place for promotion, etc., the diversity of examples is about 1 dozen. The question you need to ask is: Does wikipedia only support pure theory, or does wikipedia also address *real things* in the "real" world. If wikipedia is to deal with the virtual world, some thinking about how to reasonably apply the spirit of the law to these cases must be undertaken. The fact is that what an ELECTRONIC portfolio "is", is still being negotiated in this real world. The examples provided reflect the diversity of these different understandings. A classic "encyclopedia" dealt mostly with history, and evidence supported by physical things in the physical world. In this new, virtual world that wikipedia itself is a part of, how we provide examples is of the utmost importance. The removal of these links renders the article of little practical use to anyone except an academic. 12.10.125.8 (talk) 14:15, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

I know the policies and guidelines, thank you. My original comments still stand. External links to non-notable examples are inappropriate, a directory of external links is inappropriate, links going to promotional pages that do not further illuminate the articleare inappropriate, and exceptions aren't warranted because you think one article is a special case. The policies and guidelines apply to all. If you want to reflect the diversity of different understandings, then write about them, with appropriate citations. Again, that large list of links do not belong there. I have requested a 3rd opinion. =Axlq 14:37, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

Third Opinion

Notable examples should be converted into prose, and referenced with links to the external sites within <ref> </ref> tags. Bare "External Sites" are less valuable than contextualized links. While Axlq is correct in his reading of WP:EL, articles can and should contain external references in the reflist, especially if {{cite web}} is used. Jclemens (talk) 16:13, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

Visual evidence, whether static or dynamic, is not "link spam"

The suggestion that one can convert a virtual space into descriptive text is not well informed. For example, describe a Dolphin with text. Why would one do that? One would not. The linking of representative examples of a concept whose definition is still being worked out through practice in the world is both valid and appropriate according to wikipedia's guidelines. This AXLQ fellow is not considering the facts of this case. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.10.125.8 (talk • contribs) 21:43, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

This is the principle argument. The argument regarding incomplete links was inserted by another party (who is a respected colleague with less knowledge of wikipedia than I have), and I concur that it is not an appropriate argument. One should write a good article, not link in that case.

However, the principle argument I make is the one above: Design does not lend itself to words. Description is superceded by concrete examples with the inclusion of photography in wikipedia. It is not 'lazy' to fail to describe a dolphin or other fish when a picture is available. Electronic portfolios are similar in this regard, and different in two important ways. First, there is not an established representation of what an electronic portfolio "is". In fact, each of the provided links is a fundamentally different type of electronic portfolio, interpreted and experienced in the world in very distinct ways from one another. Second, these links are interactive evidence of the differences. They therefore serve the same purpose in the article as a picture serves in other articles on wikipedia - but for a dynamic, electronic "thing".

How wikipedia presents and describes that which is electronic and social (socio-technical) is an important, general debate. The links on this article to not fall into a previously agreed upon category for "link spam", and to continue to stubbornly suggest they do without addressing the core of my argument about why they are not "link spam" is intellectually lazy. There is a reason that the police do not make laws. :) 12.10.125.8 (talk) 13:17, 29 August 2008 (UTC)