Portfolio: Difference between revisions
(Created page with "==Using ICTs to support use of Portfolios in learning== [http://edutechwiki.unige.ch/en/User:Rhyon-whittle Rhyon Whittle], [http://www.mun.ca Memorial University of Newfoundla...") |
|||
| Line 4: | Line 4: | ||
==Problem== | ==Problem== | ||
Current portfolio development methods present difficulties in terms of storing and searching through the information, as the data are gathered through a writing based approach (Chang, 2002). Due to the volume of paper-based information gathered over time, traditional portfolios are not well suited for easy viewing (Chang, Liang, & Chen, 2013). Traditional portfolios are also prone to be underutilized; because of their format, they may remain unused once their initial purpose has been fulfilled (Horton, 2004). They are described as “physically unwieldy”, and transporting them for review is described as “a very laborious proposition” (Strudler & Wetzel, 2005, p. 419). Additionally, their physical nature makes it possible for portfolios to be misplaced (Strudler & Wetzel, 2005), thereby losing all the work the portfolio represents. | |||
In addition, traditional portfolios are not naturally designed for convenient sharing; it proves challenging to provide access to multiple viewers (Smith, 2003). Even where an effort is made to develop portfolios in formats suited for distribution, there are still challenges related to the updating of distributed versions (Smith, 2003). Also, they are not able to easily catalogue the development and growth of the learner (Abrami, Venkatesh, Meyer, & Wade, 2013). Portfolio revision poses a challenge because traditionally designed portfolios are not easily updated with new content (Horton, 2004). Their nature limits the ability to readily revise any component of the portfolio in response to recommendations for improvement (Smith, 2003). Traditional portfolios are also ill suited for the inclusion of audio and video; they will miss the opportunity to capture items best represented in multimedia form (Abrami, et al., 2013). Additionally, where audio and video are provided, it is often burdensome to set up the required equipment to facilitate viewing of the content (Smith, 2003). | |||
==Role of ICTs== | ==Role of ICTs== | ||
Revision as of 16:43, 8 July 2014
Using ICTs to support use of Portfolios in learning
Rhyon Whittle, Memorial University of Newfoundland
Problem
Current portfolio development methods present difficulties in terms of storing and searching through the information, as the data are gathered through a writing based approach (Chang, 2002). Due to the volume of paper-based information gathered over time, traditional portfolios are not well suited for easy viewing (Chang, Liang, & Chen, 2013). Traditional portfolios are also prone to be underutilized; because of their format, they may remain unused once their initial purpose has been fulfilled (Horton, 2004). They are described as “physically unwieldy”, and transporting them for review is described as “a very laborious proposition” (Strudler & Wetzel, 2005, p. 419). Additionally, their physical nature makes it possible for portfolios to be misplaced (Strudler & Wetzel, 2005), thereby losing all the work the portfolio represents.
In addition, traditional portfolios are not naturally designed for convenient sharing; it proves challenging to provide access to multiple viewers (Smith, 2003). Even where an effort is made to develop portfolios in formats suited for distribution, there are still challenges related to the updating of distributed versions (Smith, 2003). Also, they are not able to easily catalogue the development and growth of the learner (Abrami, Venkatesh, Meyer, & Wade, 2013). Portfolio revision poses a challenge because traditionally designed portfolios are not easily updated with new content (Horton, 2004). Their nature limits the ability to readily revise any component of the portfolio in response to recommendations for improvement (Smith, 2003). Traditional portfolios are also ill suited for the inclusion of audio and video; they will miss the opportunity to capture items best represented in multimedia form (Abrami, et al., 2013). Additionally, where audio and video are provided, it is often burdensome to set up the required equipment to facilitate viewing of the content (Smith, 2003).