TTN - 21st Century Learner
We believe that ePortfolio should:
- be owned by the learner and not the institution
- allow the learner to belong to multiple institutions
- provide free learner accounts, institutions pay for aggregation of portfolio tasks that they assign
- use a service based architecture not a system architecture
- allow access wherever the individual engages with the internet
- allow users to submit directly to accreditation organisation
- allow the recording of process as well as product of learning
Attached to this post is our vision of ePortfolio web services: a trinity of individual, institution and accreditation bodies connected by web services available now through MAPS.
Find out how all about our third generation ePortfolio system. See how:
- students own their portfolios;
- students can belong to multiple institutions;
- institutions own aggregated views;
- how red pen makes assessment a breeze;
- LiveAssess for creativity and collaboration.
MAPS is not a technology. It is an approach and methodology for 21st century teaching and learning. Find out by clicking: http://www.maps-ict.com
At the e-Assessment Question in London this year TAG Developments will for the first time engage an entire conference in a LiveAssess assessment task. 100 delegates will brainstorm their ideas for a bow tie using the LiveAssess software, construct a prototype and photograph it using the LiveAssess software and then video a short presentation on their final piece again using the LiveAssess software.
The live controlled exam session will be controlled from the stage using the MAPS system, delegates will be able to see their peers progress towards completion of the task with the sub tasks driven to their devices using instant messaging technology embedded within LiveAssess. Each delegate will by the end have produced their own storyboard portfolios of their design work evidencing not just the final product of the activity but the process by which they got there.
Finally delegates will then take part in a conference wide Comparative Judgement session. This accreditation body technology facilitates a national implementaion of theComparative Judgement process, a replacement for traditional marking pioneered by the work of Alistair Pollit and Professor Richard Kimbell. In Comparative Judgement, markers are replaced by judges who are shown pairs of pieces of work online and are asked to say which one is better without reference to detailed objective criteria. The system in the background then chooses which pair to show to subsequent judges and thus refines the rank order of student work in the back ground.
The education system is failing our young people. Why? Because our approach and methodology is flawed. We need a great debate.
"The 21st century requires young people to be able to think imaginatively, work co-operatively, and have highly developed personal and social skills."
Our work with Limerick University is a great example of how Comparative Judgement assessments can be used for teachers to assess each other.
Design and Technology student teachers were given an open ended project to create design projects which they might use in their practice once qualified. The projects were competed over a number of weeks with each teacher encourgaed to create a number of learner journal entries along the way. These posts began as brain storms of initial ideas or photographs of early inspiration alongside their reflections on the same and as their work developed evidenced their progress. This might include photographs of their projects in development, video of the manufacture process of audio reflections of their progress to date.
Teachers were also able to use mobile phones to capture their progress without needing internet access or installing any special software. The MAPS system allows the teachers to register a mobile phone number against their eportfolio. When an opportunity arose to video themselves completing a task or perhaps reflecting in audio on their progress they were able to use their mobile phone devices to digitally capture that evidence and then MMS or SMS the evidence to their portfolio. This means that evidence capture can be 'live', as it happens, rather than in retrospect as would traditionally be the case with eportfolio building.
Once the diary entries were created MAPS then allows the entries to be tagged against the assessment activity. By doing this the teachers automatically created story board portfolios of their learning process.
Having created the story board portfolios assessment was then completed by the teachers themselves using the Comparative Judgement method. In this approach all of the portfolios are entered into the Comparative Judgement engine. When teachers then log into the system they are shown pairs of portfolios that are chosen from those available using an algorithm derived from the Law of Comparative Judgement, a branch of mathematics created by Thurstone in the 1920s. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Law_of_comparative_judgment.
As the teachers make their judgements this in turn determines which pair of portfolios are shown to the next judge. In this way the system is able to refine the pairs that are shown to judges to improve the scaled rank which the approach produces.
At the end of the process the system produces a scaled rank order of all their work. This scaling has an internal reliability upwards from 0.95 which in assessment terms is unheard of. By exposing each other to the comparative approach and without reference to any criteria the teachers are exposed to the creative value in the process illustrated by each of the portfolios they judge.