I’d suggest that it is not only Blackboard with which institutions are unhappy. Many institutions in mainstream education suffer the same frustration if not disillusionment. Perhaps it is a lack of negotiation between academics and installers as to what functionality is expected. Perhaps it is a lack of forethought by developers as to what education will really need in the proximate future. Perhaps it is a serious lack of INSET being provided to both teaching staff and technical administrators as to how to configure their VLE and content delivery to the needs of a modern and collaborative society.

I do, however, have serious reservations about any wiki being the solution to a proper e-Portfolio. It might meet a few needs of a young undergraduate but will hardly meet the wide range of requirements of a Lifelong, Lifewide e-Portfolio, which will travel with them throughout life and present differently to a range of different audiences.

There are possibly some 40-odd different suppliers of VLEs providing an incalculable number of differing e-Portfolio formats. Despite acknowledging the leap forward (sorry) that LEAP2 has made in the interoperability circus, I just wonder if, rather than trying to match every different permutation of IMS, IA(FE), SCORM, SIF, LEAP compatibility issues, it is time to consider that all systems could operate via an intermediary ‘black-box’. This would give all vendors a level playingfield in which to work.

My own suggestion to colleagues that need an immediate e-Portfolio solution is to look at an independently hosted system such as e-Folio that can work alongside any VLE, and yet at the same time provide a basic format for the institution which can then be developed as learners require.

Ray T