Surely this is one of the first failures of ‘institutional thinking’ – I would strongly suggest that the main assessment tools and the related artefacts should be part of the institution’s VLE/MLE rather than the personally owned ePortfolio. – In terms of assessment, the ePortfolio then becomes a support tool for internal verifiers to use as a ‘backstop’.

Secondly, I do not see the ePortfolio as being that ‘pantechnicon’ of all of a student’s learning. Consider the ePortfolio as more like a loose-leaf ring-file in which the learner places appropriate artefacts as needed at that point in time and for a selected audience.

However, as I have said elsewhere, I noted Donald’s diatribe with some amusement. I do really wonder what planet he comes from. His blog-post reminds me of the exclamation of the proud mother, watching her son out on parade, “Look! Everyone is out of step except my son!” As an articulate speaker, Donald certainly amused his audience at the recent ‘Assessment Tomorrow’ conference at which I spoke. However, this was a meeting of assessors and educationists, which he was certainly not. As a self-confessed employer from a previous generation he certainly had little understanding of the education market, of the extent to which an ePortfolio culture is spreading within all areas of Teaching & Learning, and, for that matter, how teaching and learning methods have changed since he was at school.

Amongst a group of circa 200 delegates most were ‘pro’ ePortfolios in some form or other. To this group the title of my presentation was “ePortfolios – why so slow on the uptake?” (http://www.slideshare.net/maximise/why-so-slow ) In this presentation I explored some of the reasons why ePortfolios are not making as rapid progress as we might expect (but with a few exceptions). I am therefore flattered that Donald should take several of my concerns eg of the 40+ VLEs providers in the UK, institutionalised systems, interoperability, the lack of ePortfolio related CPD, the contrast a modern generation of Web2.0 learners, the steady revolution in Teaching and Learning styles etc. However, despite the massive world-wide interest in ePortfolios and the take-up by hundreds of universities, CoPs and many thousands if not millions of mainstream learners, he took the problems that I referred to and turned them on their head, not as issues to be understood and constructively overcome, but rather reasons for the obdurate rejection of ePortfolios. (Babies and bathwater come to mind.) I did mention that recent accessions to my blog had reached over 11,600, and that there have been over 100,000 thousand accessions to my posted works on SlideShare and Issuu. Even to the extent that on the Monday before the conference I had my first reader from Mongolia, on Tuesday a reader from Siberia and even whilst I was speaking, a first-time reader from Sierra Leone – in all, readers from 131 countries.

I did, of course, mention the impressive interest shown by people in New Zealand and Australia, along with the whole-State provision of eFolio in Minnesota and the scores of initiatives throughout America and Asia. Also that all mainstream learners throughout the whole country of South Korea were provided with an ePortfolio and that through the national provision of the GLOW VLE to all schools in Scotland pupils had access to a form of ePortfolio.

Donald rejects the ‘Shoebox Syndrome’ out of hand. But I wonder if he has photographs at home, or framed certificates in his office, or artefacts in his attic that he might reflect upon and gain some satisfaction? Does such a person go through life without celebration of special events or reflection of past glories? Can life really be that sterile? Can such a person go through life without ever attempting to present him/herself in the best light without a short CV or evidence of credentials? To Donald I say. “Wake up! You live in a digital world where the ePortfolio is that natural ‘preferred option’ for so many of us. Because you choose to think differently is no reason to condemn the rest of us to a pre-digital age.”

Yes, indeed, e-portfolio tools have been used uncritically and unhelpfully (a bit like VLEs, OER repositories … name your (un)favourite piece of educational technology) but as with all the rest it’s a question of being discriminating about what they are good for, and how to use them to good effect.

Perhaps we can go further and say that, yes, it is time for some seriously critical reflection to scope the requirements both of the software and the practice or e-portfolios, if there are to be positive results in the long term. The “lifelong” question to me is even more tricky, as perhaps whether a lifelong approach is useful depends on the personality of the individual. I wouldn’t want to lay down the law on that kind of thing (as Donald Clark provocatively appeared to be doing initially, though of course in rational discussion his position is much more nuanced)

The one thing I would suggest, particularly for people who are familiar with the routine e-portfolio literature, is to read Darren Cambridge’s new book. It really impressed me. It takes the discussion to a whole new level, beyond what I have written. Remind me to write a fuller review sometime. As it happens, Darren is really not at all positive about the kind of portfolio tools one normally sees. But I won’t go on here just in a comment, just to say that people need to read Darren before attempting deeper discussion.

This sort of dialogue reminds me very much of some of the discussion around repositories. The opponents and some of the proponents pick on a simplified regimented self-referring model of what one is and work to that as opposed to concentrating on what it is that needs to be achieved. With repositories we have some who come with assumptions that information systems should work based on arcane library standards for cataloguing and interoperability with other library systems. This encourages other to criticise repositories as being disconnected from the wider world.

It’s a straw man, but it’s one that is built by both sides. It doesn’t matter to either camp that what many of us had in mind from the beginning was nothing like the repository as library system model.

The way out (I think) is to forget about the strawmen (“repositories”, “metadata”, “learning objects”, “eportfolios” &c.) and focus on what it is that you want to achieve rather than an assumed means of achieving it (so for a couple of years I’ve been talking about resource management and dissemination & resource discovery and description instead of instead of repositories and metadata). It’s hard to shed the baggage of an established term, we’re only halfway there with repositories and metadata, but I think it’s worthwhile.