The recent Becta Learning Platform Procurement framework process needed to provide a framework within which the disparate components of Learning Platforms could be identified. The idea was to map the functions required for effective pedagogy which do not naturally map to technical specifications.

The pedagogy should drive the system, not be forced into technology bound models.

To facilitate this the functional requirements of the LP were outlined, and cross mapped to technical specs (which can change)

e-portfolios are one of the functional requirements, and the actual use can be broken down to provide a subset of functional requirements for the portfolio.

The existing LPF functional requirement states:

http://industry.becta.org.uk/display.cfm?resID=17320 (copy in file store)

R29: Portfolios

Mandatory

Description: Users shall be able to create and maintain portfolios for sharing content and to support personal development.

Notes: This kind of functionality is sometimes provided as part of an e-portfolio. But ‘e-portfolio’ has various definitions and there are several functions that can be provided, possibly via links to a range of web services. Portfolios could include goal setting, identifying interests and learning plans.

It is expected that there will be further work to help clarify e-portfolio functionality.

It is suggested that we define the functional requirements of an e-portfolio based around Stuart's suggestion of 4 main functions.

This may resolve itself as per our discussions into a main e-portfolio function supported by Various tools (as per Shane's suggestions)

Transition

Presentation

Assessment

Reflection (Learning?)

See A definition of eportfolio and DefineePortfolio

There has been a similar discussion on the CETIS ePortfolio SIG. I posted some information about the 'functions' of the Pebblepad system to try to provide some clarity. It seemed to be well received and so I have reproduced it on the page Functions Example

Further to initial discussions the work of revising the Learning Platform Functional Requirements is underway, with draft v1.1 ongoing, and proposals for v2 being reviewed.

The main change for V2 would be the possibility to incorporate e-portfolio functions in the body of the Learning Platform functional requiremenst, rather than as a discrete addition.

General Revision Proposals

The bullet points below highlight those revision proposals that relate to the LP Functional Requirements e-portfolio proposals document but are not necessarily related to individual functional requirements:

• Glossary of terms - There is use of some words that have significance in an e-portfolio context. A glossary of such words should be developed to eliminate uncertainty. This work may also need to be extended to cover the different vocabulary used in different sectors, particularly regarding the new diplomas. [existing glossary focussing on e-assessment here: http://www.jisc.ac.uk/assessment.html]

• Definition of users – in LPFv1 “Users” is a word that is be used to describe different types of users interchangeably. “Schools”, “Pupils”, “Teachers” and “Learners” are used in some of the requirements. The role of the users is often too prescriptive and bound to traditional pedagogic models. Activity based roles provide a more objective view, and are often dictated by the context.

o Users:

o Author – creator of an item

o Editor- user capable making a change to an item

o Viewer- user with read only rights

o Reviewer- user with rights to read and comment

o Assessor – user with rights to read, comment and grade items.

o Auditor/ Verifier- user with rights to view specific author/ editor and assessor items, and add comments

• Context – The context for the requirements in LPF v1 was confusing, use cases, scenarios or examples would help to clarify the intention of the requirement in an Educational context. A comprehensive list of use cases is impractical, though the framework for their development and the description of a suggested process is being discussed at the next EPERG meeting (26th Nov). It is likely that most use cases can be broken down and listed under one of four activities:

o Presentation

E.g. Applying to university online using e-portfolio, including applicants without normal qualifications to demonstrate their abilities

E.g. An employer checking an applicant’s qualifications and accessing evidence of their learning

o Assessment

E.g. A learner 14-19 combining learning in school, college and workplace owning and using a portfolio that could be accessed by any of their tutors

o Reflection(Learning?)

E.g. A learner keeping a journal of practical work experience to review and identify what went well.

o Transition

E.g .A learner moving from school to college at age 16 presenting an e-portfolio combining qualifications data, portfolio of learning evidence, and personal learning statement/CV

E.g. An adult continuing or returning to learning having a lifelong learning identity and e-portfolio for each new element of learning, or CPD

notes from EPERG meeting 26th Nov.. to be added and collated into text RE

Need for COMMISSIONER role, with ability to lock files

Need for COLLABORATOR role, clearly identifying addition made, need for versioning.. this is a compound of CORE roles?

Need for MENTOR and ADVOCATE roles, compound roles

maybe define CORE roles, and compound roles.

NEED to look at function matrix , identifying rights for each role, and requirements.

Outside the need for descriptions of roles for defining Functional Requirements for this particular activity, there is a need to link roles and security and rights, and also clarify Ownership.