Web2.0&eportfolio

How does the Web 2.0 Metaphor apply to ePortfolios?
As I read the discussion of Web 2.0 on Wikipedia, and follow many of the links, the parallels with education were obvious. Web 1.0 is represented by traditional static web pages (that are updated rarely, if at all); Web 2.0 is represented by server-side software that is more interactive and more like desktop applications. Web 2.0 is sometimes called the "Participatory Web" based on an architecture for interaction.
A social phenomenon referring to an approach to creating and distributing Web content itself, characterized by open communication, decentralization of authority, freedom to share and re-use, and "the market as a conversation"
In Thomas Friedman's revised version of The World is Flat, he changed his fourth "flattener" from "Open-Sourcing" (Self-Organizing Collaborative Communities) to "Uploading" (Online Communities, Open Source, Blogging, Wikipedia and social networks). While he didn't classify this flattener as Web 2.0, it is obvious to that is what he meant from the type of software that he described.
The following is a chart that was published by Tim O'Reilly in an article that discusses Web 2.0. He goes on to talk about Harnessing Collective Intelligence, Blogging and the Wisdom of Crowds, Software as Service, not as Product. There is some controversy in this duality, and while some authors do not agree with the concept of a new Internet, it is still interesting to speculate how so-called Web 2.0 technologies are changing business models.
Web 1.0

Web 2.0
DoubleClick

Google AdSense
Ofoto

Flickr
Akamai

BitTorrent
mp3.com

Napster
Britannica Online

Wikipedia
personal websites

blogging
domain name speculation

search engine optimization
page views

cost per click
screen scraping

web services
publishing

participation
content management systems

wikis
directories (taxonomy)

tagging ("folksonomy")
stickiness

syndication
Netscape

Google
The Web 1.0/2.0 concept as compared here mostly applies to e-commerce. But how will Web 2.0 impact education? There are already a growing group of educators who are exploring the emerging role of these Web 2.0 technologies to transform learning in schools. The Partnership for 21st Century Skills has identified a set of learning skills, 21st century tools, context, content, and assessments. Stanford Research Institute published a resource in the early 90s that outlined these new learning environments. ISTE has used a similar chart to focus on restructured learning environments when implementing technology in schools.
Conventional Instruction

Reform Instruction
Teacher-directed

Student exploration
Didactic teaching

Interactive modes of instruction
Short blocks of instruction on single subject

Extended blocks of authentic and multidisciplinary work
Single media

Multimedia
Individual work

Collaborative work
Teacher as knowledge dispenser

Teacher as facilitator
Ability groupings

Heterogeneous groupings
Assessment of fact knowledge and discrete skills

Performance-based assessment
So, how do those comparisons relate to students learning with technology? And how do these concepts apply to assessment? I have already discussed the differences between types of assessment in my White Paper and in my other web pages. Here is a a brief look at how Web 2.0 technologies are changing the use of technology in education. The chart below is from an online presentation by Teemu Arina at the European eLearning 2006 Conference:
Hierarchical Approach

Network Approach
Structured

Networked
Controlled

Turbulent
Designed

Emergent
Managed

Adaptive
Broadcast

Aggregation
Courses

Ecosystem
Centralized LMS**Learning Management System

Decentralized PLE**Personal Learning Environment
Information TechnologyCore in Information

Interaction TechnologyCore in Interaction
According to Arina, blogs make visible what you have learned and we could use blogs as a meta-cognitive tool (something I have advocated ever since I started blogging). Further, Arina says that we could connect reflections through the use of wikis for abstraction and generalization, referring to Kolb's Experiential Learning Model. With Web 2.0 technologies, we are moving from browsing to aggregation. Arina's recommendation: don't buy a box full of pieces... just get an empty box and connect to other pieces with open standards.
When educators think of portfolios in education, they assume the purpose is for assessment. But I always ask, "What kind of assessment?" As I have discussred in my previous online papers, there are several approaches to assessment, and thus to portfolios. First, here is a comparison of these two key assessment purposes, based on work done in Britain by the Assessment Reform Group (see www.assessment-reform-group.org.uk):
Assessment of Learning
Assessment for Learning
Checks what has been learned to date
Checks learning to decide what to do next
Is designed for those not directly involved in daily learning and teaching
Is designed to assist teachers and students.
Is presented in a formal report
Is used in conversation about learning
Usually gathers information into easily digestible numbers, scores and grades
Usually detailed, specific and descriptive feedback in words (instead of numbers, scores and grades)
Usually compares the student's learning with either other students or the 'standard' for a grade level
Usually focused on improvement, compared with the student's 'previous best' and progress toward a standard
Does not need to involve the student
Needs to involve the student -- the person most able to improve learning
Here is my comparison of electronic portfolios used as assessment of learning with those that support assessment for learning. This chart has been published in my White Paper as well as an upcoming article in IRA's Journal of Adolescent and Adult Literacy.
Portfolios used for Assessment of Learning
Portfolios that support Assessment for Learning
Purpose of portfolio prescribed by institution
Purpose of portfolio agreed upon with learner
Artifacts mandated by institution to determine outcomes of instruction
Artifacts selected by learner to tell the story of their learning
Portfolio usually developed at the end of a class, term or program - time limited
Portfolio maintained on an ongoing basis throughout the class, term or program - time flexible
Portfolio and/or artifacts usually "scored" based on a rubric and quantitative data is collected for external audiences
Portfolio and artifacts reviewed with learner and used to provide feedback to improve learning
Portfolio is usually structured around a set of outcomes, goals or standards
Portfolio organization is determined by learner or negotiated with mentor/advisor/teacher
Sometimes used to make high stakes decisions
Rarely used for high stakes decisions
Summative - what has been learned to date? (Past to present)
Formative - what are the learning needs in the future? (Present to future)
Requires Extrinsic motivation
Fosters Intrinsic motivation - engages the learner
Audience: external - little choice
Audience: learner, family, friends - learner can choose
As I have been writing this article, I have discovered a lot of like-minded educators, both in North America, Asia, and Europe, who are writing about these same issues of Web 2.0 and Education. It is exciting to experience the serendipity of a worldwide community of learners who are exploring these issues at the same time, sort of a unified field theory (my Fielding faculty would be proud!).
In summary, as I review all of these comparisons, I have come up with a new look at ePortfolios from the framework of Web 2.0, which I will call ePortfolio 2.0. Other terms might be "blog-folios" or "wiki-folios" or perhaps iPortfolios (i=interactive).
ePortfolios 1.0

ePortfolios 2.0
Hierarchical, Designed

Networked, Emergent
Metaphor: Portfolio as Checklist

Metaphor: Portfolio as Story
Data-driven

Learner-driven
Focus on Standardization

Focus on Individuality, Creativity
Feedback from Authority Figures

Feedback from Commumity of Learners
Large, complex systems

Small pieces, loosely joined - "Mash-ups"
Web-based Form

Blog and Wiki
Positivist

Constructivist, Connectivist
Accountability-driven

Learning-focused
Proprietary

Open Standards
Digital Paper (text & images)

Digital Story (multimedia)
Local Storage (hard drives, CD)

Network Storage (Lifetime Personal Web Space)
What are some of the advantages of an Interactive Portfolio? Just as the Web changed with the implementation of the architecture of interaction, we could say that portfolios have the potential to change with the pedagogy of interaction, especially as used within a paradigm of assessment for learning. With these new tools, we can post work and invite feedback, as in a blog; we can post work and invite co-authors, as in a wiki. Fortunately, wiki tools keep track of the changes, so that authorship can be tracked, if that is important for accountability. As I wrote in the Connected Newsletter (2006)
The use of technology can be a motivating factor for portfolios, especially if we can make the process engaging for the learners, and give them an opportunity to express their own voice and leave their own mark in their portfolios. As schools implement electronic portfolios, it will be important to do more than replicate their paper-based predecessors or adopt a data-base-type portfolio system that only allows students to fill in blanks on a web-based form. Where is the individuality, creativity, and ownership? To truly engage learners, I encourage schools to incorporate emerging Web 2.0-type technologies that motivate and engage adolescent students, including digital storytelling, multimedia artifacts, podcasting and blogging (maintaining a reflective online journal).
We have seen how much students are motivated to use online social networking sites, such as MySpace and FaceBook. The TaskStream electronic portfolio has been described by students participating in the REFLECT Initiative as an “academic MySpace.” If only we could capture that level of motivation while furthering the goals of deep learning in formative electronic learning portfolios, then we may realize the real promise of using technology to both improve and showcase student achievement.