Digital Portfolio and Curriculum Documentation
In the context of the MLL program and preparation for the seminars, the digital portfolio system is used in two ways:
- As a data collection tool: presenters documented classroom activities, student outcomes and lesson results, and used video and still imagery within the format of the electronic portfolio. Doing so was a natural next step to follow the groundwork laid during the LLSN projects, where many invested time to learn the portfolio framework;
- As a sharing platform: beyond the face-to-face meetings, the portfolio (web accessible with password) allowed participants to reference activities from other sites.
This past year, the digital portfolio platform has undergone a range of improvements and modifications. It was piloted, improved, rebuilt, and established during the LLSN project over the past four years. At this point, the system is mature and stable and has been used by all participants, including many interns currently enrolled in music and music-in-education programs.
In the context of a curriculum documentation tool, the Digital Portfolio continues to support local classroom projects. Although these instances may or may not be shared, the platform primarily serves the practitioners (teachers, interns, teaching artists) to document and reflect upon their work. For example, regarding 2nd-grade tests on both English language and musical skills, student artifacts are easily accessed directly linked to the activity description:
Figures 1-2: 2nd grade word test related to music test, online in electronic portfolio
In many of the sites, the actual documentation of projects and modifications to existing online portfolios was slight, as compared with the previous years. One reason, captured by a guided practices consultant was,
“this was a step-back year of reflection. Even though we are moving forward with our classroom projects and even have now included all classes in the school, we are looking at our work from last year… [the portfolio] and seeing how to change it so it will address the needs of the program [MLL Certificate Program]. We didn’t create any new portfolios for that reason, but next year, we’ll probably have several new… [ portfolios]…”
Sites were rated on portfolio development using six criteria:
1) Quality of documentation: how complete the information, does it include adequate explanation, images, samples, 2) Documentation of site growth: how the portfolio demonstrates the site’s growth over time, 3) Professional Development outcomes: how the portfolio explains and reflects professional development occurring as a result of LLSN projects, 4) Integration: how the portfolio documents music integrated lessons, 5) Assessment: how well the portfolio documents assessment practices of the project or site, 6) Currency: how relevant to a site’s current projects and practices, how recently updated
Sites overall were not current (low of 2.6); most were demonstrating projects from previous years, or not recently modified; most likely since projects were continuing from previous years as well as for the reasons stated above. Integration was the most richly documented aspect (high of 3.43).
Figure: All sites Digital Portfolio ratings; portfolio dimensions
We also compared individual sites to each other with regard to portfolio use. Half of the sites scored below 3.0, the mean of all sites. A mean of 3.0 indicates a fairly high threshold of portfolio quality, especially for the first year, though we realize much of the portfolio fluency was established during the previous two years as participants of LLSN schools.
Figure: All sites Digital Portfolio ratings: site comparisons
Additional description of the electronic portfolio and its use by guided interns is found in the next section.
View as Single Page or Print
