RAPPORT
WWW.RECORDINGACHIEVEMENT.ORG
Issue 1 (2015)
experiences, linked to various types of digital
records of those experiences. Beyond the items
themselves which have included in the portfolio, a
message about the author is also conveyed by
their choice, and also how they are displayed and
juxtaposed. Sometimes this is referred to as a
‘showcasing’ e-portfolio. However, one could
conceive of a value to the individual in the creation
itself of such an object, as a reflection and
‘holding’ of personal identity – whether or not it is
validated by an audience.
Type ‘B’ is most commonly found within
professional courses such as health care. It could
be characterised as an online ‘workbook’, guiding
a learner through a process of learning from
experience. Such e-portfolios will typically contain
proformas or pages containing structured
questions, directing the learner as to the type of
information to include and how to work with it. The
purpose of aggregation is most likely to ensure
coverage
of
all
required
professional
competencies and experiences and/or to be able
to chart development of reflective capacity over
time.
Type ‘C’ is perhaps closer to Type ‘A’ in that an
audience is assumed, but shares with Type ‘B’ the
possibility that a professional competency
framework might dictate the items required. The
purpose here is to demonstrate competencies
achieved rather than to make transparent the
process of acquiring them. One could envisage a
Type ‘C’ e-portfolio consisting entirely of digital
badges, each evidencing a specific element of
competency (perhaps accompanied by a brief
personal introduction such as the Deakin
University
Me-in-a-Minute
videos,
see
https://blogs.deakin.edu.au/meinaminute/
(accessed 10/04015).
Consider the meaning of evidence in the context
of each type. All three types contain ‘evidence’ of
learning. But then arguably anything a learner
produces – even answers to a test – is evidence
of learning (and in Type C, test results might well
form an appropriate part of the evidence
presented).
How is the evidence judged?
‘Authenticity’ is often put forward as an important
criterion, but this can have different meanings.
Clearly any claim made about the provenance of
evidence must be true, but beyond this,
authenticity is sometimes seen to reside in the
extent to which the learner has freely selected or
chosen the evidence. In Types B and C, choice
could be quite restricted.
How significant is the appearance of the portfolio,
its aesthetic or design qualities? This might be a
major difference between Type A and the other
two types. Arguably appearance is irrelevant for
Type B, where only the content matters. For Type
C also, there may well be little difference between
one user and another in the overall appearance of
the e-portfolio, particularly when there are specific
criteria to be met or competence elements which
must be demonstrated. In contrast, in Type A the
appearance may well be very significant since it
conveys messages about personal identity.
In terms of statements sometimes made which
attribute a transformatory power to e-portfolio
technologies, it would seem that the authors have
in mind Type ‘A’ rather than the other two types.
This, if true, is a little worrying. It risks conveying
the message that some purposes for using eportfolios have greater value than other purposes.
This in turn may deter some practitioners from
taking up the wide range of opportunities
presented by e-portfolio technologies to
contribute to better practice, both in terms of
increased effic