In some European countries such as Finland, Italy and Norway PDP has been employed as both a reflective learning tool for existing teachers and their professional development and for trainee teacher as a tool to report achievements and competencies.
Although it’s true that there are variations that exist in each individual country there are also many commonalities. For example, all initiatives discussed seem policy driven and part of wide spread educational reform. In this summary, I will therefore be making mainly holistic observations.
The anticipated outcomes
In renewing the teaching methods of existing teachers initiatives sought to facilitate teachers in their “lifelong learning” and to help them move between different stages of education by refreshing their methods. Indeed, it was a hope of the Finnish Information Society Program for Education Training and Research that as the training deepened and a participant’s knowledge increased in the educational use of ICT, it would enable them to function as a training consultants and educational planners.
E-portfolios have been shown to promote a new kind of learning processes for trainee teachers where the theory and practice are integrated better than previously. It was expected that e-portfolios would largely concentrate on good practice and aid reflection.
At best e-portfolios were shown to help identify and help manage Learning. They proved motivating and stimulating. They facilitated collaboration: new ways to create and convey knowledge with the prospect of a real audience that made the learning process more dynamic.
Limitations to implementation
In the UK e-portfolios were viewed as the ‘glue’ between elements of the learning and assessment process. However, in other countries the link was not so evident.
It has been suggested that for e-portfolios to become meaningful they must first become a fundamental part of the learning. Else, they are in danger of appearing to add no extra value. The recognition of an e-portfolio’s purpose of use should be fundamental before embarking on implementation. This was seen as a challenge in some cases.
On this point, it was also concluded in the PLUTO report that e -portfolios can give unnecessary work to both teachers and students when the distinction between how they will be used for evaluation (summative and formative) are not clearly defined
In Norway, amongst other countries, it was proposed that portfolios should be used in primary education as a channel of communication between the parent and the teacher. While a positive idea in theory, it was discovered in practice that the majority of parents were not adequately trained in the use of the appropriate technology.
Speaking as an educator in an International setting, I found the most fascinating barriers to implementation concerned the educational culture of an individual country. Could a culture facilitate adoption or, conversely, obstructed it?
In some countries the adoption of portfolios has been smoothed by free ownership rights, where in other countries it is more restrictive. It is argued in this study that the establishment of ownership, illusory or not, is essential and will heavily influence whether a teacher will see an e-portfolio as being beneficial.
Vuorikari, R. (2006) ‘National policies and case studies on the use of portfolios in teacher training’ (online). Europortfolio 2005, Cambridge, UK. Available from:http://insight.eun.org/shared/data/insight/documents/e_portfolio_teacher_training_final_10_05.pdf(last accessed 8 June 2011).
A Voyage In Online, Distance and Blended Learning 