CUNY Academic Commons

The ePortfolio subcommittee met on Tuesday, March 22, at 4:00 PM. Members present included Barbara Walters, Joe Ugoretz, Howard Wach, Gina Cherry, and Sarah Morgano. This report has been generated in haste — please feel free to comment or amend.

The discussion was a lively one, summarized below, with one key take-away: the ePortfolio subcommittee members recommend that the Committee on Academic Technology endorse a formal resolution to eliminate or substantially revise Objective #5 (p.5) in the Draft CUNY IT Strategic plan as stated below.

“Identify best practices, recommend software solutions, and support requirements for an enterprise e-Portfolio solution” (ePortfolio is the preferred spelling).

The members of the subcommittee are unified on this; there is not and cannot be a “one-size-fits-all” for ePortfolios. This would have disastrous consequences for students in programs that need to tailor ePortfolios to different goals, needs, and objectives.

Much of our discussion centered on the enhancement of communication capabilities in Digication and a comparison of Digication with other platforms in this area. Gina noted the broader recognition of an “on-the-ground” problem, largely prompted by our recent C2L “Jam” and the recognition on the part of experienced ePortfolio faculty and administrators that moving back and forth between the CMS, the community blog, and the Digication comment feature is cumbersome. Howard discussed the flexibility and responsiveness of Jeff Yan, CEO of Digication, and his expressed willingness to work with the C2 L community, adapting the platform to our needs.

This led naturally to a discussion of other platforms and their capabilities for combining ePortfolio with discussions and blogs, especially in light of one of our first “universals” – the ePortfolio belongs to the student and should exist outside the course management system. Joe Ugoretz, who quickly became identified as “Joe the ‘O’” (outlier) advised us of the many possibilities through plug-ins with WordPress, the “free puppy”, while at the same time acknowledging the unique characteristics of Macaulay students. They provide a contrast to the needs of most CUNY students for a simpler platform like Digication. The Digication group (Gina, Howard, Barbara) likewise acknowledged that while most students and programs may best be served by simpler platforms, the university should continue to provide opportunities for students with high end of technological competencies through platforms like WordPress and its many plug-ins.

The remainder of our discussion centered on Assessment capabilities and again the different strategies for different kinds of students: an echo of the earlier discussion of Swann’s Way and Guermantes way – a metaphor not to be taken too literally or too far. But some students need the lattice structure with its matrix of competencies and technological ease of a platform like Digication to structure their path; others can “just do it” – making their way through as well as creating a cyberspace labyrinth of “curiosities” that expresses their digital identities; they need something different. We appreciate what informal outliers like Joe Ugoretz bring to the discussion and the questions he poses: we want to emphasize that the “O” must not become an institutional deviant role through the imposition of an enterprise solution or by folks who think there’s only one solution to ePortfolios.

We did touch briefly on the IT university-wide publishing platform for students – a discussion that extends beyond ePortfolios.