m ville .m cnrc.o rg
http://mville.mcnrc.o rg/tech-sto ry/
Our Technology Story
mcnrc
Contents
Platf orm Selection – as a Process
Engaging Students
Pedagogy
Prof essional Development and Training
Outcomes Assessment
Support and Collaboration
Looking Forward — Conclusion
We were initially propelled to explore ePortf olios by a strong f aculty sentiment to transition our longstanding
paper portf olio tradition to an electronic platf orm. Additionally, we hoped to increase student engagement with
our Portf olio System through the use of technology. We began our exploration of ePortf olios as both
technology and pedagogy in Spring 2010 with participation in the Making Connections seminar through
LaGuardia Community College. During this time, we were exposed to various platf orms, both proprietary and
open source, and also were able to talk with campuses who had already implemented both kinds of platf orms.
Knowledge of our IT inf rastructure, including its capabilities and limitations, was integral to our decision-making
process. Additionally, prioritizing the needs and desires of our f aculty and students were equally important as
we decided what vendors to bring onto our campus. Ultimately, we selected Digication as our platf orm of
choice f or our Manhattanville Portf olio System.
Authors: Alison Carson, Jim Frank, Gillian Hannum, Sherie McClam
We chose Digication because, of the various platf orms available at the time, Digication was the only
proprietary vendor who shared the same priorities that we did: a user-f riendly f ocus on the
learning/presentation portf olio. Strengths of Digication include a clean, f inished visual layout, ease of use,
potential f or visual customization by individual users, inclusion of a large variety of f ile f ormats, multimedia
capabilities, a “Comments” f eature allowing f or collaborative and social pedagogies, student and f aculty
support, and support with regard to the customization of assessment modules. We have had a very positive
and collaborative experience with them developing specif ic assessment modules f or our needs. As a company,
we have f ound Digication to care about its customers; they provide quick and personal support and show a
willingness to use customers’ f eedback as a source f or product development.
In terms of weaknesses, while overall we have been very pleased with Digication, the assessment capabilities
in the Courses module is a little clunky. We have not spent time sharing this f unctionality with our f aculty yet as
we have been f ocusing initially on the pedagogy and technology using the Portf olio f unctionality. T here was
some concern that the Courses f unction may, in f act, turn f aculty away f rom the Portf olio module. To be
specif ic, the building of assignments within Courses is at times redundant and not intuitive. Additionally, while
we have explored introducing f aculty to this module as a way of organizing their student portf olios, this use is
not particularly ef f ective. T he lack of organizational structure of portf olios on the homepage is a big
weakness. Many f aculty use ePortf olios in multiple classes. ALL portf olios that one owns or is simply a viewer
of appear on the homepage. T here is no way currently to organize those portf olios. T he ability to organize
into f olders, or hide particular ePortf olios, would be a big improvement. While a large video uploader is
currently being beta-tested, the 20MB limit of other f iles has been a problem. Additionally, while we are very
happy with regard to the ease of use, advanced students in computer graphics or computer science have been
f rustrated with the limited options f or customizing their ePortf olios.
Plat f orm Select ion – as a Process
T he process of choosing an ePortf olio platf orm was an important one. T his process was directed entirely by
our ePortf olio team at the time, which included one f aculty member, one technology librarian, and one
instructional technologist. While certain stakeholders were included in the process (e.g., IT ), the ePortf olio
team were the drivers of the process.
We recognized that once we moved down the road of implementation, changing the platf orm midstream could
potentially undo the hard work already done. We learned this vicariously through some programs involved in the
Making Connections seminar. Additionally, we wanted to be inclusive of f aculty in the decision-making process.
First we began by developing a matrix of f eatures that we thought were important and examined these
f eatures in the products of a number of dif f erent vendors. T hese f eatures included: ability to support
accreditation reporting, ADA compliance, cost and cost structure, compatibility with our Student Inf ormation
System and existing LMS (Blackboard), assessment capabilities including rubrics and reports, ease of use,
f lexibility in the interf ace, portability capabilities, social networking/media integration, storage allotment, training
and support f or f aculty and students, the visual look and f eel of the interf ace, and f ile management and
organization capabilities. We then prioritized these f eatures f or Manhattanville.
Very Important Features survey results
Our primary motivation f or moving in the direction of ePortf olio was the transition of our paper Portf olio to an
electronic f ormat, thus ease of use, the ability to visually present various modes of student work, and
potential to engage students were top priorities f or us. In addition, we also identif ied areas of our own campus
that could af f ect ef f ective implementation. Specif ically, we knew that our IT department as it was currently
structured could not support an open source platf orm. While budget is always a concern, it was not a primary
concern. We also recognized that while open source sof tware itself was f ree, there was signif icant cost
involved in the customization, maintenance and support of the sof tware.
With a clear understanding of our own priorities, we invited f ive ePortf olio vendors to campus to present an
overview of their products and to demonstrate their use (each presentation occurred at two dif f erent times to
allow f or more participation): LiveText, Epsilen, Digication, TaskStream, and Remote-Learner, a service provider
f or Mahara, an open source platf orm. T he on-campus visits were advertized heavily, particularly among f aculty
and staf f . Following the presentations, we circulated a comparison chart of all of the platf orms and how each
addressed specif ic issues of importance to f aculty and staf f , and f ollowed up with a survey soliciting f eedback
about the various platf orms as well as how f aculty saw the use of ePortf olios in their teaching. Additionally,
some of the vendors provided us with trial accounts to preview and practice with the product. T hirty-f ive
f aculty and staf f participated in the survey. T he results indicated that Digication was clearly the pref erred
vendor. Based on this f eedback, with which the ePortf olio team members concurred, we negotiated with
Digication f or a one semester “pilot” license. We had considered the idea of piloting two platf orms. We thought
the ability to compare f eatures of two platf orms would be usef ul, but in the end, the work to pilot a single
platf orm, much less two (two sets f or f aculty development workshops, two sets of assessments, etc.) led us
to f ocus on piloting a single platf orm. (Had we decided to pilot two, the runner up would have been Epsilen.)
Click on image f or expanded view
Following a one semester pilot of Digication, we conducted a f ollow-up survey with the f aculty and students
using the product. Using these data, working with the Faculty Technology Committee, we submitted a proposal
to the Administrative Technology Committee and the Provost requesting that Digication be adopted as our
campus ePortf olio solution. T his recommendation was accepted and a contract was drawn up. Participation in
the Making Connections seminar was essential to the process of choosing a vendor, as well as to the
implementation process, as it f ostered communication with other campuses using ePortf olio and allowed us to
learn directly about the pros and cons of various ePortf olio platf orms. It also allowed us to understand and
prioritize f or our campus the f eatures of an ePortf olio platf orm that would be most important. T he structure
and support given to us throughout our participation in Making Connections was invaluable.
Overall, we are very happy with the process we used. It was an open and transparent process including
multiple stakeholders on campus. We could have included students in this process more. T he process was
also perceived as being open and transparent as is was used as a model f or the process f or choosing a
learning management system just last year. T here remain a number of proponents on campus f or open
source. While open source certainly has its advantages, we used our priorities to guide us as well as our local
resources, and we are very happy with our decision.
Engaging St udent s
T he Digication platf orm allows students to f ully participate in the design of their ePortf olios – the plural is
stressed here as many of our students have created several ePortf olios f or specif ic audiences, which they
have personalized through adding graphics, color, as well as creating a hierarchy of visual communication to a
viewer. A wonderf ul example comes f rom one of our eTerns who has created ePortf olios f or various classes,
and has created what could be seen as an exit ePortf olio possibly to be used f or applying to graduate school
or f or employment opportunities.
https://mville.digication.com/maggie.mai/About
Many of the students who were the early adopters of ePortf olio were part of our original small pilot program,
in the class Computer Graphics 1, a Studio Art class that counts towards Manhattanville’s General Education
Technology competency. T his class helped serve, and still does, as an introduction to learning about creating
visual content and applying that knowledge to customizing ePortf olios along with sharing their work with their
instructor and peers.
We believe our students are generally happy with Digication, though some of the students who are more
advanced with digital media, HT ML coding and Graphic Design tend to f ind it a bit limiting. We have used
anonymous surveys to collect data on how students and f aculty view the Digication platf orm. Below is a link to
our student survey; results are shown in the graph. T he results below are f rom a sample of n=65 students
surveyed, with 51 or 78.5% undergraduate and 14 or 21.5% graduate students, and indicate an average
satisf action ranking of 2.68-3.00 on a scale of 1-5 with 5 being the highest score.
In one of our initial presentations to the f aculty in 2010, we included “begin ePortf olio eTern training” as one of
our goals. Since then, student workers, or eTerns, have become an invaluable part of our ef f orts in developing
an ePortf olio community and culture at Manhattanville. From the very start, we recognized f rom seminars,
discussions, conf erences and student ePortolio showcases how important student voices would be in the
process. We were f ortunate to participate with colleagues in the Making Connections seminars where we were
exposed to the value of student voices in developing an ePortf olio culture. We saw wonderf ul examples of
student work at LaGuardia Community College and Stony Brook University student showcases where the
excitement and the energy f rom the students presenting their work was contagious.
Initially, eTerns were recommended by f aculty who had the students in an ePortf olio class. However, as the
number of students prof icient in ePortf olio grew, we have increased the number of eTerns. Currently, we have
about 10 eTerns working in the Center f or Teaching and Learning (which is located directly next to the
ePortf olio Lab) around the clock. An eTern is on duty in the eTern of f ice f rom 9am to 9pm Monday through
Friday and f rom 3pm-9pm on Sundays. T hese students are college employees paid f or their time and are
available to work with students and f aculty on a walk-in basis, or pre-arranged one-on-one training using the
Digication platf orm. As our applicant pool increased and our understanding of how to best use the eTerns
grew, we came to understand that while knowledge of Digication is an obvious requirements, the ability to
conf idently communicate this knowledge to both students and f aculty was equally important. We also employ a
student eTern Supervisor (Head eTern). Our Instructional Technologist is the staf f supervisor of the eTerns
and does the hiring (and f iring). Our student eTern Supervisor serves as the liaison between the Instructional
Technologist and the rest of the eTerns and helps with scheduling, designing workshops, determining needs
and priorities, etc. Together, the Instructional Designer and the student eTern Supervisor design and implement
eTern training at the beginning of each semester. A number of our eTerns are f eatured in our Student Voices
video. Here are some examples of the workshops that have been designed and implemented by our eTerns:
Submitting Your Freshman Essay and Your About Me Section
Wrapping Up Your First Year Experience in ePortfolio
Submitting Your Sophomore ePortfolio
Multimedia, Graphics, and Video
Uploading Different Kinds of Presentations
CSS and Advanced Customization
eTerns also have become an integral part of our Faculty Teaching and Learning
Circles (T LCs) of f ered in our new Center f or Teaching and Learning. One eTern is
assigned to each T LC cohort as the contact person f or f ollow up support during the
T LC and af ter it has been completed.
Pedagogy
One of the benef its we have observed by using ePortf olio in the classroom, in our T LCs and across the
campus is the ability to collaborate and develop the idea of communities (classes or small groups of students,
f aculty and alumni) aimed at peer-to-peer learning. T he ease with which people learn how to use Digication is
very benef icial in bringing “outsiders” into our learning communities. For example, one of our School of
Education f aculty members is using our ePortf olio platf orm to f acilitate a “virtual” Socratic seminar in which her
graduate students and 5 Manhattanville alumnae are collaboratively exploring and interrogating one of the
texts in her course. T he “e” in ePortf olio is extremely important f or some of the f aculty in the arts who have
embraced ePortf olio as a pedagogy. Digital technology allows f aculty to utilize multi-modal content f or
teaching, learning and expression while encouraging students to customize and present their work to a social
audience of any desired number, and, to any target audience.
One example we present is f rom Prof essor Geof f Kidde in the Music Department at Manhattanville. Prof essor
Kidde “makes learning visible,” while f ully recognizing and utilizing the power of digital content, and states on
his personal ePortf olio in a section that highlights student work:
“T hese two movies are exercises in adding audio to short videos. T he assignment was to replace all the sound
in the movie, including dialog (ADR), sounds coming f rom actors (Foley), and background music. In the dialog
replacement, the voice you hear is not the actual actor’s voice, but added by someone else. T he story was not
important–all boils down to an exercise in editing audio.”
T he ability to share and celebrate one’s personal work with colleagues, students and a much larger audience is
clearly presented in Prof essor Kidde’s ePortf olio, something that would be nearly impossible to achieve in a
paper f ormat.
https://mville.digication.com/geof f rey_kidde_composer/SomeTunes
Prof essor Frank has been using ePortf olios in his Computer Graphics 1 class since we began our pilot in
2010. All students download a template with built in architecture and scaf f olding, as well as ref lective prompts.
Students can more or less customize the appearance of their course ePortf olio, while maintaining the core
inf ormation needed f or “grading.” Students set permissions f or their ePortf olios so Prof essor Frank – and all
of their peers in the class – have viewing and commenting capabilities.
One example of an assignment that is perf ectly suited to ePortf olio and current technology is situated in this
class. About half way through the semester, when students are comf ortable with adding content to their
ePortf olios, they are asked to embed a video they f ind online that covers any specif ic aspect of one of the
applications that is being used in class (Adobe Photoshop, Illustrator or InDesign) in which they want to gain
more understanding. Students are asked to write a brief ref lection on why they chose the video they did, and
also are asked to view at least 4 videos posted by their peers and comment on those videos. T he role of the
“teacher” is almost entirely removed, as students become peer researchers and teachers to each other.
Prof essional Development and Training
Link to Prof essional Development
Our primary Prof essional Development and Training program is our Teaching and Learning Circle (T LC). T his
f our-session workshop involves a total of six hours of work with the f acilitators and also includes work to be
done at home in between sessions. While the f ocus of each T LC is on ePortf olio pedagogy, and especially on
the role of ref lection, we do use the f our sessions to also provide basic instruction in Digication. Each agenda
in the f irst three weeks introduces various skills needed to use the technology, and these are reviewed at the
f ollow-up session the next week.
In addition to the T LCs, we of f er other ePortf olio workshops through the Center f or Teaching and Learning,
including a basic “ABCs of eP” and specialized sessions in how to use ePortf olio f or advising, f or tenure and
promotion, etc. We would like to of f er more advanced workshops as well, particularly f eaturing the “courses”
and “assessment” f eatures of Digication, but we simply have not yet had the time or manpower to do so.
We have a f ew online tutorials, and this is an area we would like to develop f urther as we recognize that not all
f aculty will be able to commit the time needed to attend a T LC. However, we f eel that the online tutorials are
technical in nature and lack the exposure to pedagogy that the T LC provides.
One of our main concerns is that a number of people take a T LC but then do not seem to move f orward by
using ePortf olio in a class. We need to examine more deeply why this is happening. It may, in part, be lingering
technological insecurity, but more likely it may be the need to entirely re-think a class and syllabus in order to
integrate ePortf olio ef f ectively into the course.
Out comes Assessment
So f ar, the bulk of our outcomes assessment utilizing ePortf olio has been pilot groups of our Portf olio
System reviews. In the Spring of 2013, we embarked on our f irst f ull review, with the entire sophomore
class going through the process electronically. We provided f aculty and student support through workshops
and eTerns. We used the “Comment” f unction f or advisors and department chairs to “approve” student
ePortf olios. In addition, several departments and programs are asking students to create ePortf olios at
various phases of their academic progress. T hese were discussed in more detail in our Outcomes Assessment
story. Examples include the Castle Scholars Honors Program and the Department of Art History, to name just
two. At present, these ePortf olios are assessed holistically by f aculty teams reviewing them in their entirety.
Otherwise, our use of Digication f or assessment remains limited. Several of us have experimented with
assessing specif ic assignments within the “course” mode and have f ound it to work satisf actorily, if not f ully
intuitively. Admittedly, we are not f ully up-to-speed on the f unctions available here. T he “work f low” diagram
that lets instructors know which students have submitted work and which have not, and which also indicates
what has been scored, is excellent, but the setting up of the rubric and assignment is a bit cumbersome. Once
set up, though, it is easy to use and the scoring system allows f or f ractions, etc. We def initely want to learn
more about this f eature and take better advantage of it.
We have worked closely with Digication to create a customized assessment module in the Digication
Assessment Management System f or the Manhattanville Portf olio submissions. Additionally, we have used this
system f or program assessment of the First Year Program. T his system has great potential, although we have
not synced it with our student inf ormation system, so there is currently no linkage between the Registrar’s
of f ice on our campus and Digication at this time.
Support and Collaborat ion
T he budget f or our Digication contract f alls within the IT department, which f alls under the umbrella budget of
Academic Af f airs. In general, the ePortf olio Leadership Team, in consultation with IT, is responsible f or the
ePortf olio project planning, vision and implementation. Our team leader actively liaises with Digication with
regard to managing technological issues that arise and developing new f unctionality to meet our needs. When
we f irst selected our platf orm, there was a member of the IT department on the ePortf olio team. T his is no
longer the case, but the current eP team works to integrate IT in technology project planning and problem
solving in every way possible. T he new Instructional Technologist, who reports to the Center f or Teaching and
Learning rather than to IT, has also become an active member of our Leadership Team.
At this writing, our ePortf olio platf orm stands alone with no connectivity to any of our other college
applications. T his lack of connection and coordination has been a signif icant issue f or us. For example,
because our college data management system (Colleague) does not currently interf ace with Digication, student
ePortf olio account management has been a nightmare f raught with human errors that have led to inconsistent
login protocols and account duplications. Another area in which the lack of connection between Colleague and
Digication is a substantial problem (or will be a problem) has to do with degree auditing.
We selected Digication as our ePortf olio platf orm because it was easy to use and visually appealing, and we
believe that these things have had a substantial ef f ect on our capacity f or scaling up. Both of these virtues are
inviting when it comes to people just having a go and trying it out. Because Digication is so easy to learn and
use, we can spend f ar more time in our Teaching and Learning Circles engaging f aculty in f abulous
conversations about integrative learning and social pedagogies, because we do not have to spend much time
on learning how to use the tool. T he visual appeal and multimedia f unctionality draw newcomers in and invite
them to experiment with ways of getting students to take f ull advantage of this f unctionality. T his, in turn,
of ten leads to innovative pedagogy. In this way, the tool can be a catalyst f or pedagogical change.
Looking Forward — Conclusion
Given that we are generally happy with Digication, we are f eeling positive about continued use of our platf orm.
T he things that we would like to do more ef f ectively f all into two categories. T he f irst has to do with outcomes
assessment. As we mentioned above, we have f ound the Course f unction within Digication that is capable of
supporting course-based outcomes assessment to be “clunky” and dif f icult to use. To date, instructors who
have been using ePortf olios in their classes are assessing individual student ePortf olios, but they have not yet
learned—in part because we are reticent to show them how—to create courses in which students can upload
common assignments that can then be assessed as a group. T he second area f or improvement has to do with
integrating social media with Digication. At this writing, there are a number of our f aculty members who are
intrigued by the notion of using ePortf olios as a f orm of “academic” social media within their classes. T hey are,
however, limited by the f unctionality available on Digication. For example, asking students to engage with the
content that their classmates post through the comments f unction is awkward and very limited in its appeal.
Rather than trying to recreate social media f unctionality on Digication, we would like to f ind ways to integrate
student ePorf olios with other social media such that they can more seamlessly engage their broader social
communities with and in their academic work. One of our f aculty members designed a “social media f or social
change project” f or her First-Year Seminar in which she imagined that students would create ePortf olios on
Digication that presented cases f or social change with regard to sustainability and creating a f uture that we
can live with. Once given the assignment, her students instantly said they wanted to connect their ePortf olios
with Facebook because this would be the best way to get their message out to and solicit input f rom their
social groups. Having a seamless interf ace between Digication and other social media would have made this
project much more appealing and productive f or her students.
Because Digication has been so responsive (at least in words) to our requests f or f unctional modif ications,
we are conf ident that as members of our f aculty continue to develop and practice innovative pedagogies that
need to be supported, they will rise to the occasion. For example, as mentioned above, we have a f aculty
member who is trying to f acilitate an alumni book club in one of her graduate courses. We have the opportunity
to learn f rom her attempts to f acilitate this book club on ePortf olio and to take those lessons directly to
Digication. We f eel like our relationship with them is one in which they will get excited about and want to
support the pedagogical innovations that we are trying to accomplish. T heref ore, we f eel that the selection
process we went through led us to the right outcome f or our needs, and we look f orward to continuing the
partnership with Digication as we explore other possible uses of ePortf olio as a learning tool.