Management: Different E-portfolios
Hi Ryan,
I appreciate your discussion on e-portfolios. It is indeed valid that there are different E-portfolios platforms that aid in student’s academic and career growth. What stood out for me is that you highlight different types of e-portfolios in your discussion. Every platform has its advantages and disadvantages. Therefore, it is exceptional that you discussed the advantages and disadvantages of each e-portfolio based on your interactivity. In this case, you speak precisely on the key areas you liked and disliked in both the University of Delaware and the University of Waterloo. I commend you for taking a step further to discuss on why you found AMU’s e-portfolio to be intriguing for you. I agree with you that e-portfolios should be more focused on students’ assignments to critically access their work and reflect on them (Roberts, 2018).
Xavier,
You have an excellent discussion on E-portfolio. You indeed raise some valid points on the different layouts between Google and portfolium. It is indeed true that portfolium is a fantastic tool that enables users to connect. Similarly, it allows its users to search and apply for jobs easily. However, I do not entirely agree with your discussion on portfolium’s disadvantages. You state that the only disadvantage portfolium has is that it does not have a big name attached to it, such as Google. Google indeed is a widely known name; however, I concur that lacking a widely known name for porfolium makes it a disadvantage. I believe that one ideal disadvantage of porfolium could be poor institution or students’ adoption of the portfolium (Portfolium, 2018).
Reference
Portfolium. (2018). Leveraging ePortfolios to Drive Learning Success with Virginia Tech. Retrieved from Virginia Tech: https://vtechworks.lib.vt.edu/bitstream/handle/10919/89521/VTech_Portfolium%20AAC%26U%20Working%20Deck.pdf?sequence=1&isAllowed=y
Roberts, P. (2018, April 2). Developing reflection through an ePortfolio-based learning environment: design principles for further implementation. Technology, Pedagogy, and Education, 27(3), 313-326. doi:https://doi.org/10.1080/1475939X.2018.1447989