Summary : e-portfolio implementation and use at Thanet Further Education College

To visit the case study pages select:

 

Case study Home Page

An overview of use

The implementation journey

 

Key words: Thanet, FE, Further Education, UK, PebblePad, Mahara, In-folio, Learning Assistant, REfLECT, IfL, CPD, PDP, UK, reflective practice, staff appraisal, special needs students, peer-to-peer, accessibility, personal accountability

 

e-Portfolios used since 2008  

Learning Assistant (Mapping portfolio) used for 150 NVQ candidates and 400 beauty therapy and work-based business and care students. This is ongoing and likely to increase further from September as the current students complete.

 

PebblePad use by teaching staff: All staff use REfLECT but the College has a history of widespread use amongst teachers and supporting staff over the previous 4 years. Some teaching staff continue to use and have accessed their college portfolio in the last six months. The College is embarking on the transfer of content from the Thanet portfolios to REfLECT.

 

PebblePad has been piloted in three courses. The third one completed in the Summer term and is a successful capture of two units of a Business Administration Diploma.

 

In-folio has been delayed due to issues with accessing it on a server based at a neighbouring college.

 

Mahara has been explored to varying degrees of application by 350 students. It was recently upgraded to the latest version and formal staff training is underway further to a deliberate roll-out to students to use in the new term.

 

e-Portfolio tools: 4 tools are used. PebblePad and the PebblePad based REfLECT for staff accreditation purposes with the Institute for Learning. PebblePad is used as a reflective e-portfolio for students in a small number of higher level courses. Learning Assistant (Mapping portfolios) used for NVQ candidates. Mahara (internally hosted) is being explored for student initiated use. In-folio designed for students with learning difficulties or learning disabilities is to be explored.

 

What is distinctive about this implementation case study?

Driver

• The need to develop e-confidence for staff and national accreditation requirements for lecturers led to initial staff use
• The need for efficiency gains for courses that map competences/skills - replacement of paper-based systems led to the use of a mapping e-portfolio.
• A desire to explore the potential offered to the profundity of learning experience available through personal learning space  

 

Tool used

Four tools are used to meet the diverse range of abilities and needs - two tools have been piloted and rejected. In use are:

• PebblePad (internally hosted) and the PebblePad based REfLECT (externally hosted) for staff accreditation purposes with the Institute for Learning. PebblePad is used as a reflective e-portfolio for students in a higher level Business Administration course
• In-folio (hosted externally) and designed for students with learning difficulties or learning disabilities explored (implementation delayed) 
• Mahara (internally hosted) added to College server for student exploration. Learning Assistant (Mapping e-portfolios) used for NVQ candidates

 

Implementation features for senior managers

• College wide e-learning strategy includes e-portfolio use

 

Implementation features for e-portfolio managers

• Developments have been middle-out initiated: The Head of e-Learning has been influential in guiding the implementation and he has been involved in externally funded projects to support this work
• Personal Learning Plans are developed within the VLE and are not perceived as 'e-portfolios' 
• Use began with PebblePad for professional development of staff (part of a strategy to developing e-confidence) that would lead to staff accreditation with the Institute for Learning
• Reflective e-portfolio use by students using PebblePad is less well established and Mahara is being explored as a student initiated e-portfolio

 

Implementation features for practitioners

• Mapping e-portfolio use by students followed staff use and is established for courses where there is this requirement, for example NVQs

 

Implementation features for technologists

• The issue of where to host the software is important because of the personal ownership of the portfolio by the student/tutor. A suitable mechanism of exporting content is important if it is hosted in the institution. There is an increase in traffic caused by the saving of sound, images and movies. Off site posting is encouraged 

 

The nature of e-portfolio use

College wide use has been initiated by a whole institution e-learning strategy.

  

Inter/whole course –> cross dept/school/faculty use	Cross institution use within the curriculum	Extra-curricular use including transitions into and from the institution, WBL and CPD
	Personal tutorial and guidance Personal Learning Plans supported across the whole institution (2010- ) Support for professional practice courses Mapping eportfolio use by NVQ students (2009- )	Staff Professional Development Continuing professional development of staff(2007- ) Professional accreditation through the Institute for Learning (2008- )
	Students with learning difficulties/disabilities In-folio PILOT - use by students with learning difficulties/disabilities (2010)	Staff Professional Development Reflective portfolio use on an IT Qualification course (2010) Work Based Learning Reflective e-portfolio for use with unemployed learners in bespoke training with a local company (2010)

 

The nature of the implementation journey

The initiative has been driven by the Head of e-learning working with teachers who wanted to explore the benefits to learners and also to benefit from the efficiency gains from using mapping e-portfolios rather than the paper-based approaches already used. There has been no strategic intervention from senior managers or governors.

 

Implementation began with staff use and then pilot use with students in different contexts. This began with use of a PebblePad reflective journal by staff that was aligned with the IfL roll-out of Reflect followed in 2008 with a pilot of a reflective e-portfolio by two small groups of users. A key element of the strategy is the flexibility in choice of tool which meant ensuring functionality matched the context and ongoing evaluation of tools - this has led to the use of different tools. For 2010 the mapping portfolio Learning Assistant is used by most NVQ students, In-folio is being investigated for use by special needs students, PebblePad continues to be used as a reflective portfolio by staff and some students and Mahara is offered as a tool through the VLE for 'free' use by any student. This use is alongside a tutor-led but collaboratively developed Personal Learning Plan within Moodle for all students on all courses.

 

Stage 0: Context - prior developments	Stage 1: Planning	Stage 2: Adopting	Stage 3: Embedding	Stage 4: Sustaining
2006/7: The College implemented Moodle as its VLE. Paper based mapping of skills/competences was happening on some courses. This was the default position prior to introducing electronic ones. Paper-based personal learning plans were the previous default model.   Personal Learning Plans developed by most lecturers in negotiation with students are included within the VLE. The college was amongst the first to introduce Moodle VLE in 2005 and added the PLP component in January 2010.	2007: The Head of e-learning developed the   e-portfolio implementation strategy informed by a critical literature review and e-portfolios were included within the teaching and learning strategy. This led to research across the college supported by Becta funding to explore the capacity for uptake of new technologies.	2007: Staff Professional Development Pilot aimed to support their own understanding of the use of a reflective portfolio before its roll-out with students. This aligned well with national professional accreditation and monitoring of CPD requirements.   2008 and 2009: Student use Pilots of Mapping Portfolios to support NVQ candidates - there is no reflective element in these.   2008: Pilots of sample activities using reflective portfolios in PebblePad with 2 groups of 15 students.	2010: Staff Professional Development PebblePad continued use with staff and a reflective e-portfolio is used on an IT qualification course   2010: Student use Extensive use of mapping  e-portfolios using Learning Assistant software.   Limited use of reflective    e-portfolios using PebblePad - level 3 IT Qualification course has used this successfully.   Mahara installed for student use linked from Moodle to encourage student centred use of reflective e-portfolios.   Pilot of use of In-folio for students with learning difficulties/disabilities.	2011: Funding issues may affect future developments. The role of e-learning manager is being discontinued.   Staff Professional Development The use of e-portfolios for staff professional development is likely to continue due to external drivers.   Student use Efficiency gains from the use of mapping e-portfolios and external requirements are likely to sustain their use.   Reflective e-portfolio use with students remains problematic - due to student attitudes and commitment of staff time to design and support learning acitvities.

 

 

Managing organisational change

 

Governance , leadership and vision

The Head of e-learning within the Improvement and Innovation Team is responsible for implementation of all aspects of e-learning working closely with technical staff and writes the College's e-learning strategy. He reports to Curriculum Leadership Group (Senior Management). He is a senior lecturer and has a 0.5 teaching role as well. e-Portfolio introduction came from his enthusiasm and acquired expertise in the area that led to development of the implementation strategy that became part of the e-learning policy in 2007. He attracted Becta and then LSIS external funding for pilot work that supported his vision to develop the e-confidence of staff within the college.

 

Alignment with the institutional context

DRIVERS: Implementation was informed by government statements about the need for students to have personal learning spaces, the increasing use of paper-based mapping portfolios by staff and students with the need to make these more time efficient, the requirement for all FE staff to become 'qualified' to teach and evidence their continuing professional development through the Insitutute for Learning.

 

In developing a distinct e-ILP requirement the functionality of both plan and portfolio polarised and distinct products and purposes and in a sense each defined the other by mutual exclusivity.

 

TECHNOLOGIES: The chosen reflective e-portfolio was driven by the need for staff to experience this prior to implementing it with students. Hence the choice of PebblePad a version of which is used by the IfL. The need for a simple mapping e-portfolio and the needs of learners with learning difficulties led to the implementation of Learning Assistant and an exploration of In-folio. In addition because staff had not been that sucessful at integrating PebblePad within their courses and because the college was using Moodle, Mahara was installed in 2010 for open use by students. This initially had no cost implications.

 

 

Developing expertise and communicating with stakeholders

Professional development for staff

• Through developing central expertise: The Head of e-Learning has the expertise to support practice from his knowledge of this within and outside the college. This has been developed throught personal study, involvement in national projects and conference attendance in order to support his role
• Through staff use: The implementation began with and continues to involve staff for professional development and accreditation
• Through sharing practice: Pilots provided expertise that could then be shared. Staff were encouraged to reflect on incidents of training as well as incidents that happened during the working day. The staff seemed particularly keen to record unique experiences relating to their professional areas. There was a sense of pride in the unique professional attributes and experiences gained by individuals is encouraged their capture and reflection. It was surprising how much activity went unrecorded and therefore unknown to the college because it was discounted as not being part of the formal staff development process
• Because of the amount of unique stories being captured no attempt was made to formally share but staff are encouraged as part of the recording process to think who they might like to share with. This became part of the culture of staff training devolving to the individual and using professional colleagues to criticise and enhance narratives. Whilst this was started it was never openly adopted nor officially championed and no attempt was made to centrally record or publish any of it. Some staff became identified as champions of the process including one teacher in particular for whom the cataloguing and cross referencing of experiences and learning supported her natural way of thinking (as described by her) she believed that the use of a portfolio supported her way of thinking on the autism spectrum
• A blog was maintained and shared with the majority of teachers as a means of showing a portfolio by use rather than an instructional portfolio

 

Student use was supported by the e-learning manager and tutor together in all cases. Central technical support was provided by the vendor except Mahara which was supported within the IT department.  Heavy reliance on literature, the JISC Curriculum champions mail list and conferences generally supported the development. 

 

Other stakeholders

Senior management has relied on the expertise of the Head of e-Learning to support their understanding. Each pilot has been evaluated  and the experience used to inform our development at teacher level. Senior management were informed of progress through iterations of the e-learning strategy which referred directly to the development and implementation of mapping portfolios.

 

It is notable how much easier the students have found the mechanics of PebblePad and have had relatively little training. Teachers, being more sceptical, required far more understanding of the conceptual processes and were less tolerant or less able to manage the software successfully. The current student pilot which is still ongoing appears very promising and was surprisingly easily implemented relative to previous pilots and staff use.