There is no standard definition for a portfolio. They act a repositories, personal spaces, a showcase, notebook, journal etc. When they work, they are wonderful. However, their fitness for purpose cannot be assumed. The usual explanation for their success (or failure) is in the initial framing. But portfolio practices and success also has something to do with the technology. Yesterday, I added a small bit to a conversation started by Alexandra Mihai. She was wondering how technology could help to encourage reflection in and on action (I added “for action” Thanks Schön ) .
After a short stint at ALT, in a portfolio role. I came across the following grid that “set out three paradigms for the NHS“. In the article, Jessica Studdert suggested that the beginnings of a new community paradigm are emerging for the NHS, as the limits of state and market paradigms became exposed.
I thought that the three paradigms articulated were also possibly useful for ed techies. Who were looking at portfolios. At least the grid helped me explain the progression of portfolios over the past 20 years. So I used the grid structure, published by newlocal.org.uk and written by Jessica (thanks), as analogous inspiration. And adapted this table Portfolios and reflection on, about and for action. Comments are welcome.
| Portfolio | Institutional | Tech led | Disciplinary |
| Organizational principle | Standardise the portfolio within an institution. Focus on the LMS from a centralized administrative perspective. | Personalize the portfolio experience for the user and their own device. Focus primarily on seamlessness and convenience (using an API). “Student experience” is key. | Distribute portfolio making capability and expertise to the profession (and individuals therein). Use activity pub protocols to make interoperability and migration possible. |
| Solving what problem | How do you check for reflection “on action“? Portfolio offers internal verification of student’s learning for assessors | How do you demonstrate reflection “in action”? Portfolio establishes norms for acceptable performance among users (and drives tech’s uptake) | How is reflection “for action” developed. Build identity, develop coherence and allows the reader to recognize fidelity. Professional life long recognition |
| Locus of power | Admin & IT | Para professionals & ed techies in collaboration with big tech and well intentioned educators | Hopefully trusted disciplinary experts. But could be anyone. More money to be made elsewhere. |
| View of the person | Deficit led. The portfolio holder must tick the boxes | Techno determinist. Many options available for the “customer”. | Led by critical practices and ethical values. |
| Links to discipline / subject | Limited | Platforms used by companies as source of inspiration and motivation in the discipline. And a subscription mechanism keeps it profitable | Depends on availability of expertise |
| Implementation method | Top – down, uniform | Performance, measurements, badges. | Devolved. Depends on local needs, cultures, the available expertise and envisaged change |
| Funding model | Centrally funded | Individual subscriptions | Place based funding. Might be membership / co-operative / department funded |
| Accountability | University Admin and government frameworks | Commercial employability / skills frameworks | Local accountability managed by the instance admin and professional associations |
| Attitude to data | Owned by institution | Defined by the T & C in the contract | Owned by portfolio holder and information therein ceded to others as desired |
Credit: Why the NHS urgently needs to turn to the community – and how to do it –