Here are a few ideas on how we might use them, however, the approach will not necessarily result in participants using them, so the motivation and engagement issue might result in a change in plan. I’m hoping Vic and Geraldine will be able to design a more effective use.
A requirement of the pgcapp unit is to complete a pdp. reference to this is included in the marking criteria. We use a stripped down pdp (see unit 6), and the intention is to develop this with the individual as they go through the unit. In reality, few develop it after writing version 1.
I’d like to use mahara to ensure all people have an online version (some still use word and attach to emails). i’m hoping with this in a more accessible version we can start to use them more effectively. i’m keen for them to use the pdp as a means of navigation for their reflections on literature, staff development, prototypes, outcomes of meetings. i’m expecting each “thing to do” in the pdp is uniquely tagged, and linked in a reflective blog.
The pdp will need to be available to either Andy, or Geraldine, and Rachael and Sian.
2. Assessed work
Participants are required to submit two reports.
design proposal (1000 words)
reflective commentary (2000 words)
These are double marked, and submitted via moodle. Earlier drafts are submitted to moodle. However, the work needs to reference their wider evidence base. therefore, they’ll need to hyperlink their reflections, evaluations etc., from the word doc they submit.
Therefore, Mahara will provide the bucket for these assets. Access will need to be for andy, geraldine, rachael, and the external examiner. there could be lots of assets, so need to work out the best way to share with us.
3. A general pot for assets
This is a bucket or semi-structured bucket for their resources (assets).
The eportfolio structure and content for parts 1 & 2 will need to be archived at the end of the unit and stored.
5. The relationship with moodle course
The current view is moodle will be the instructor controlled space. where we put up all the material (handbooks, panopto recordings, readings, exemplars, about us) and activities (submission of work, forums). Mahara is their space, we can provide guidance on use.
The question is, how do we get them to use it? the description above does not explicitly force them to use mahara … they could still simply submit a word doc. Therefore, a question would be, do we need to change the assessment so the use of an eportfolio is required? if so, to what? or do we simple positively spin the use in the first session and leave it at that? Given the assumptions we want people to use Mahara, we believe e-Portfolios add value to the individual, and we should be using the tool to generate learner stories, I think we might need to revisit the idea of who does what where, ie., take the assessed work more into the ePortfolio than have it where they submit separately. This is more in line with effective uses of ePortfolio’s in CMALT
So I’d like Vic and Geraldine to help me square the circle … based on uses and successes at other institutions 🙂