Conclusion

Simple item page
dc.contributor.authorWilliams, P. John
dc.contributor.authorKimbell, Richard
dc.date.accessioned2012-02-29T01:45:40Z
dc.date.available2012-02-29T01:45:40Z
dc.date.issued2011
dc.description.abstractAs the preceding papers have illustrated, there are two innovations within project e-scape. The first concerns the development of an e-portfolio system that enables learners to capture evidence of their activity (using hand-held devices in the workshop/studio/science lab/playing field) and to lodge it in a web-space where their portfolio emerges dynamically, in real-time. Teachers and examination bodies can interact with this system to a greater or lesser extent according to the circumstances. If the activity is part of a formal examination, then the Awarding Body can specify the task and the activity framework (all of which can be downloaded by the school) and teachers in many schools can then run the same activity in a standard way. If the activity is a normal piece of curriculum, then teachers can design activities for individuals or groups of learners and either run them with the learners, or enable the learners themselves to work through the activity autonomously. In any event, the outcome of all this is a web-portfolio. The second innovation concerns the assessment of these portfolios. Using comparative judgement and the pairs engine, groups of teachers and/or examiners can collaborate in the assessment of groups of portfolios. This might be for an Awarding Body, with the results counting towards an official award, or it might be within a school, where collaborating teachers use the data for their own purposes. These two innovations were launched in 2009 with the final report of phase 3 of the e-scape project. The purpose of this concluding piece is to reflect on what has happened since then; on the extent to which these innovations have been adopted in various parts of the world and the issues that this adoption is raising. Sometimes the adoption has been of only one of the innovations (either the portfolio-building or the comparative judgement), and sometimes it has been both.en_NZ
dc.identifier.citationWilliams, J.P. & Kimbell, R. (2011). Conclusion. International Journal of Technology and Design Education, available online 06 December 2011.en_NZ
dc.identifier.doi10.1007/s10798-011-9196-yen_NZ
dc.identifier.urihttps://hdl.handle.net/10289/6068
dc.language.isoen
dc.publisherSpringeren_NZ
dc.relation.isPartOfInternational Journal of Technology and Design Educationen_NZ
dc.relation.urihttp://www.springerlink.com/content/m847235247w40437/en_NZ
dc.subjecteducationen_NZ
dc.subjectelearningen_NZ
dc.titleConclusionen_NZ
dc.typeJournal Articleen_NZ
pubs.begin-page265en_NZ
pubs.elements-id36945
pubs.end-page270en_NZ
pubs.issue2en_NZ
pubs.volume-onlineen_NZ
Files
License bundle
Now showing 1 - 1 of 1
No Thumbnail Available
Name:
license.txt
Size:
1.71 KB
Format:
Item-specific license agreed upon to submission
Description:
Name: license.txt
Size: 1.71 KB
Kind: License
Collections
Science and Engineering Papers