End it, mend it, or suspend it

Though a charter member of the “end it” club re the electronic portfolio, I can understand the views of the “mend it” crowd. I think almost everyone in every camp agrees that in principle, a properly constructed and motivated portfolio system would be of great benefit to students. The problem, as evidenced by the recent discussions on this matter, is that there is very little agreement among the faculty about what a properly constructed and motivated portfolio system would look like. Should it be web-based or part of CNAV? How much of a role should faculty play in monitoring postings to the portfolio? Should faculty integrate the portfolio into their classes, or should the portfolio focus on the broader learning goals of the college? Should the portfolio focus on academics or is it a “space” for broader self expression? Is the purpose of the portfolio to get students to reflect on their learning experiences, or to assist advisors in learning more about their students, or to help students collect material for job applications, or to allow COLA to assess whatever it is they’re supposed to assess?

All of these are great questions. There’s no consensus among faculty on the answers. How can we impose a requirement that students post to an electronic portfolio before we have answered these fundamental questions? To do so is fundamentally unfair to the students and just plain silly. The faculty acted precipitously in adopting this requirement in the first place; I think it’s our responsibility now to reverse that action until we know what we’re doing.

Caroline Hartzel proposes that we suspend the portfolio requirement for a year while we work out answers to questions such as those above. That’s not so different from what I’m saying. We vote to eliminate the requirement now. The Provost’s office, the Johnson Center, and concerned faculty and students get to work putting together a proposal that lays out in much more specific terms what it is we are asking students to do and why. Pilot projects are initiated; students are surveyed; results are tabulated. A year from now, maybe two, a new proposal is brought before the faculty and we can vote it up or down, this time with some sense of what it is we’re voting on.

By contrast, I think that continuing the portfolio requirement eliminates any chance of meaningful reform. Any reform committee will be reluctant to radically change the rules of the game in midstream. They will want to preserve the students’ current postings and resist adding significantly new posting requirements out of concern for fairness. Furthermore, the political and psychological momentum for reform is likely to dissipate quickly. Before the prospect of the portfolio’s elimination was raised, who was talking seriously about making major changes to it? I don’t recall the Johnson Center hosting meetings of faculty to discuss ideas for the portfolio before Tuesday. With the portfolio firmly ensconced in the curriculum our attention will return to other things, and years from now we will have grown accustomed to the same clunky, unmanageable and unloved electronic portfolio we have today.

Whether you want to end it, mend it, or suspend it, you should vote to eliminate the portfolio requirement.