Student placement e-Assessment
Student placement e-Assessment
Pre feasibility Report
Version History
Date
Version
Author
Description
25-08-2014
0.1
Karina Judson
Initial draft
04-09-2014
0.2
Karina Judson
Updated with comments from Liz
Heathcote, Jerry Leeson and Mark
Wittervan
05-09-2014
1.0
Karina Judson
Final version
Review History
Name
Title
Date
Version
Liz Heathcote
Manager, Learning
Technologies Team
01-09-2014
V0.1
Jerry Leeson
Learning Technologies
Specialist
01-09-2014
V0.1
Dayle Soong
eLearning adviser
01-09-2014
V0.1
Mark Wittervan
Program Manager, MyUni
04-09-2014
V0.2
Pre-Feasibility Report, version 1.0
Page 1 of 31
Student placement e-Assessment
Approval History
Name
Title
Signature
Date
Liz Heathcote
Manager, Learning
Technologies Team
APPROVED
05-09-2014
Name
Title
Signature
Date
Learning Technologies
Steering Group (LTSG)
LTSG
Endorsement History
Distribution List
Name
Title
Dayle Soong
eLearning Adviser, Health Sciences
Trisha Franceschilli
eLearning Adviser, Sciences
Jerry Leeson
Learning Technologies Specialist
Mark Wittervan
Program Manager, MyUni
Ann Fergusson
Change Manager, Enhancing MyUni
LTOG
LTOG
Terms and Abbreviations
Term/Abbreviation
Meaning
CAS
It stands for Central Authentication Service. It is a single
sign-on protocol for the web. Its purpose is to permit a user to
access multiple applications while providing their credentials
(such as user id and password) only once. It also allows web
applications to authenticate users without gaining access to a
user's security credentials, such as a password.
LDAP
It stands for Lightweight Directory Access Protocol. It is an
open, vendor-neutral, industry standard application protocol
for accessing and maintaining distributed directory
information services over the network.
iOS
It is a mobile operating system developed by Apple Inc. and
distributed exclusively for Apple tablets and smartphones.
Customisation
It refers to making changes to software code to tailor the
product to meet certain requirements.
Configuration
It refers to the tailoring of a piece of software to meet certain
requirements using existing functionality.
Plug-in
It is a software component that adds a specific feature to an
existing software application.
LTT
Learning Technologies Team.
Pre-Feasibility Report, version 1.0
Page 2 of 31
Student placement e-Assessment
Term/Abbreviation
Meaning
TS
Technology Services.
eLA
eLearning Adviser.
LTSG
Learning Technologies Steering Group.
LTOG
Learning Technologies Operations Group.
References
Document
URL/Notes
Criteria for Assessing
Requests
http://www.adelaide.edu.au/learningtechnologies/files/criteria-for-assessing-requests.pdf
E-Assessment by Design
Learning Technologies
Grant – Application Form
E-Assessment by Design Learning Technologies
Grant – Application Form – Health Sciences
Pre-Feasibility Report, version 1.0
Page 3 of 31
Student placement e-Assessment
Table of Contents
1. Executive Summary ..................................................................................... 5
2. Document Overview .................................................................................... 6
2.1. Purpose of this document ............................................................................................ 6
2.2. Innovative Educational Idea ......................................................................................... 6
3. Background .................................................................................................. 7
3.1. Current State ................................................................................................................ 9
3.2. Proposed Future State .................................................................................................. 9
4. Objectives/Outcomes ................................................................................ 11
5. Scope ........................................................................................................... 12
5.1. Inclusions .................................................................................................................... 12
5.2. Exclusions ................................................................................................................... 12
5.3. Constraints.................................................................................................................. 12
5.4. Assumptions ............................................................................................................... 12
6. Options ........................................................................................................ 13
6.1. Do Nothing.................................................................................................................. 13
6.2. Open source software ................................................................................................ 13
6.3. Commercial products ................................................................................................. 15
6.4. Common access technologies in the cloud ................................................................ 16
6.5. In-house developed system ........................................................................................ 17
6.6. Comparison of Options ............................................................................................... 19
6.7. Recommended Option ............................................................................................... 23
7. Project Costs .............................................................................................. 24
7.1. Trial cost ..................................................................................................................... 24
8. Project Organisation.................................................................................. 25
9. Timeframes ................................................................................................. 26
10. Risks .......................................................................................................... 27
11. Recommendations ................................................................................... 29
12. References ................................................................................................ 30
Appendix A – Request Assessment as per Criteria for Assessing
requests........................................................................................................... 31
Pre-Feasibility Report, version 1.0
Page 4 of 31
Student placement e-Assessment
1. Executive Summary
This project will trial the use of an ePortfolio for student placement, including clinical
placements, at the University of Adelaide. The request for this project has been initiated
by the School of Nursing represented by Tamara Page and Yvette Salamon, specifically
to pilot an ePortfolio for clinical placement, and will be funded by the E-Assessment by
Design Learning Technologies Grant awarded to the School of Nursing for this project.
The inclusions of the project are:
1. To trial the use of an ePortfolio for student placement;
2. To trial an ePortfolio system available for a pilot in late 2014 or early 2015 for:
a. The Masters of Clinical Nursing program with 25 students enrolled;
b. TBC if additional cohorts will take part of the trial.
3. To document the assessment criteria of an ePortfolio for student placement for
the purpose of this trial;
4. To develop student and staff guides for the trial participants on the use of the
ePortfolio system selected for trial;
5. To train the staff and students involved in the trial on the use of the ePortfolio
system;
6. To develop documentation on how ePortfolios can be used for clinical placement
assessment tasks as result of the pilot.
The following solution options have been considered for this project:
1. Do Nothing (Current state)
2. Open source software
3. Commercial products
4. Common access technologies in the cloud
5. In-house developed system
Each of the options above was compared with reference to how fully they address the
project’s objectives, its scope and specific selection criteria. Based on the comparison
carried out, the solution option recommended is “Open source software”.
The preferred open source ePortfolio tool for trial is Mahara, which is being extensively
used by Universities in Australia.
The project team recommends LTSG the following:
1. To approve the trial of an ePortfolio for student placements;
2. To use Mahara as the ePortfolio solution to trial based on the evaluation carried
out in this report;
3. To self-host Mahara for this trial. It is important to mention that external hosting
alternative might have legal risk associated with jurisdiction, privacy and security,
particularly with offshore offerings since there is no policy for the use of cloud
services at the University;
4. For TS, to provide a virtual server with an installation of the last version of
Mahara for this trial purposes.
Pre-Feasibility Report, version 1.0
Page 5 of 31
Student placement e-Assessment
2. Document Overview
2.1. Purpose of this document
The purpose of this document is to present an initial evaluation of ePortfolio tool options
available for student placement at the University of Adelaide and to recommend an
ePortfolio tool for trialling.
2.2. Innovative Educational Idea
This project will trial the use of an ePortfolio for student placement, including clinical
placements, at the University of Adelaide. The request for this project has been initiated
by the School of Nursing represented by Tamara Page and Yvette Salamon, specifically
to pilot an ePortfolio for clinical placement, and will be funded by the E-Assessment by
Design Learning Technologies Grant awarded to the School of Nursing for this project.
Pre-Feasibility Report, version 1.0
Page 6 of 31
Student placement e-Assessment
3. Background
Currently, student placements occur across many programs offered by the University of
Adelaide. For example, students of the Masters of Clinical Nursing program must show
evidence of completing their placements during the program and on completion of their
program; they must compile all this evidence in order to apply for Transition to
Professional Practice Program (TPPP). Currently this is achieved through paper-based
portfolios integrated into this academic program.
In a professional review of literature, Butler described a portfolio as, ‘‘a collection of
evidence that is gathered to show a person’s learning journey over time and to
demonstrate their abilities’’ (Butler 2006). Additionally, academics Butler and Garrett &
Jackson have determined that “a portfolio within the nursing context is understood as a
means of encouraging reflection and enabling students to document relevant and
valuable learning experiences in practice. It provides a link between experiences during
clinical placements and university teaching. Further, it serves as a means of assessment
and provides documented evidence of attaining and maintaining competence required
for registration” (Butler 2006 and Garrett & Jackson 2006).
Following the use of paper-based portfolio to fill this need, an electronic form has
evolved called an ePortfolio (electronic portfolio) system. According to the Joint
Information Systems Committee (JISC), various definitions exist of the term e-portfolio.
There is an emerging consensus that the term encompasses both product and process:
‘Behind any product, or presentation, lie rich and complex processes of planning,
synthesising, sharing, discussing, reflecting, giving, receiving and responding to
feedback. These processes - which we refer to as “e-portfolio-based learning” are the focus of increasing attention, since the process of learning can be as
important as the end product.’
Descriptions of e-portfolio processes also tend to include the concepts of learners
drawing from both informal and formal learning activities to create their e-portfolios,
which are personally managed and owned by the learner, and where items (or whole eportfolio presentations) can be selectively shared with other parties such as peers,
teachers, assessors or employers (JISC 2008).
See below two definitions of ePortfolios:
1. ‘An e-portfolio is a purposeful aggregation of digital items – ideas, evidence,
reflections, feedback etc, which “presents” a selected audience with evidence of
a person’s learning and/or ability.’ Sutherland, S. and Powell, A. (2007)
2. ‘An e-portfolio is the product, created by the learner, a collection of digital
artefacts articulating experiences, achievements and learning.’ Sutherland, S.
and Powell, A. (2007)
JISC also mention that the primary aim of an e-portfolio may be to collect evidence for
summative assessment, to demonstrate achievement, record progress and set targets –
as in records of achievement and individual learning plans (ILPs) – or to nurture a
continuing process of personal development and reflective learning, more commonly
experienced in higher and continuing education contexts, but now also occurring in
further education and schools. These different approaches are not mutually exclusive,
however, and may in fact represent different starting points on a journey towards
embedding e-portfolio use fully into the curriculum (JISC 2008).
Some schools across the University’s Faculties such as the School of Nursing,
Architecture and Veterinary Science have recognised the importance and value of an
Pre-Feasibility Report, version 1.0
Page 7 of 31
Student placement e-Assessment
ePortfolio and expressed a need for ePortfolios relating to student placements.
Currently, ePortfolios are actively used in the School of Education; the platforms used
are Google and Weebly.
In general, ePortfolios have great potential to enhance teaching and learning by
enabling students to construct their own schema for knowledge organisation and
empower students to make sense of their learning experiences through interaction and
feedback from lectures and peers. This is in line with the University’s Strategic Plan
(‘Beacon of Enlightenment - A Beacon for Learning and Teaching’) that highlights the
need for enhanced e-learning experience and for ensuring all graduates develop values
and skills for employment.
Pre-Feasibility Report, version 1.0
Page 8 of 31
Student placement e-Assessment
3.1. Current State
As part of students’ placement assessment at the University, some Programs have
introduced in their curriculum the use of students’ portfolios (paper-based).
The portfolio is developed by a student across each year of the program and includes
artefacts to provide evidence that the student has completed all required work
placement and has demonstrated the required level of competency standard.
For each of their placements, students submit the required portfolio artefacts related to
the placement in question as a major piece of assessment on a course-by-course basis,
most of the time via MyUni. This makes it difficult for stakeholders (students, staff and
external parties) to track students’ progress through the program and to facilitate
feedback on the portfolio items/artefacts.
On completion of the program, students are required to compile evidence from all of
their placements into a single portfolio in order to apply for registration to a
corresponding National Board as per their profession requirements.
The School of Nursing, Architecture and Veterinary Science use paper-based portfolios
for students’ placements. For example, the course outline of NURSING 1007 – Health
Assessment and Clinical Nursing I > Assessment > Assessment Detail refers to the use
and assessment of portfolios for clinical placement.
Currently, ePortfolios are actively used in the School of Education; the platforms used
are Google and Weebly.
3.2. Proposed Future State
The proposed solution is to have an electronic portfolio (ePortfolio) system for Student
Placements.
This ePortfolio will be an accessible, online learning space managed by students
themselves, enabling students to electronically document, store, and reflect on learning
activities. Students should be able to upload any file type and the ePortfolio system must
work across multiple platforms (including iOS devices).
Specifically, the ePortfolio is for students to create a cumulative record of work
placements in a central repository where they can reflect on the competencies achieved.
Lecturers and/or peers will have the option to collaborate and provide prompt feedback
on the evidence and reflection recorded in the student’s ePortfolio. Therefore, the
capacity for continuing assessment of their placements through the program is easy and
straightforward.
On completion of the Program, students will not have access to the University’s
ePortfolio system; however, they will be able to export this ePortfolio to a compatible
format such as HTML, PDF or Microsoft Word that can also be used to apply for
registration to a corresponding National Board as per the students’ profession
requirements. The ePortfolio will provide a location for students to accumulate evidence
for professional registration requirements.
Pre-Feasibility Report, version 1.0
Page 9 of 31
Student placement e-Assessment
The ePortfolio for student placements will also suit clinical placements and will be used
by the project requester: the Faculty of Health Sciences – Masters of Clinical Nursing,
for summative assessment.
Pre-Feasibility Report, version 1.0
Page 10 of 31
Student placement e-Assessment
4. Objectives/Outcomes
The objectives of this project are to:
 enable more efficient online submission, marking and feedback in regard to
student placements during a program without tying each placement to a course
for assessment;
 enable students to collect evidence of competencies, core skills and attributes
that employers want to see on completion of their program;
 provide a mechanism to encourage student reflection which has the potential to
assist with students’ understanding of their own learning;
 allow portfolio information to be stored, accessed, updated and presented in
various electronic and paper based formats;
 provide a location for students to accumulate evidence for professional
registration requirements;
 support achievement of professional competencies.
Pre-Feasibility Report, version 1.0
Page 11 of 31
Student placement e-Assessment
5. Scope
5.1. Inclusions
The inclusions of the project are:
1. To trial the use of an ePortfolio for student placement;
2. To trial an ePortfolio system available for a pilot in late 2014 or early 2015 for:
a. The Masters of Clinical Nursing program with 25 students enrolled;
b. TBC if additional cohorts will take part of the trial.
3. To document the assessment criteria of an ePortfolio for student placement for
the purpose of this trial;
4. To develop student and staff guides for the trial participants on the use of the
ePortfolio system selected for trial;
5. To train the staff and students involved in the trial on the use of the ePortfolio
system;
6. To develop documentation on how ePortfolios can be used for clinical placement
assessment tasks as result of the pilot.
5.2. Exclusions
The following are excluded from the project:
1. Direct integration with MyUni will be excluded from this trial project;
2. Integration with CAS and LDAP for single-sign-on will be excluded from this trial
project;
3. Customisation of the ePortfolio tool is excluded from this trial. This trial only
includes configuration of the ePortfolio tool;
4. Using the ePortfolio tool other than for placements is excluded from this trial;
5. Deployment of the ePortfolio tool after this trial is not part of this trial project.
5.3. Constraints
The constraints of the project are:
1. Software cost must not exceed $1000;
2. The budget assigned for marking relief is $4000;
3. The budget must be allocated this year.
5.4. Assumptions
The assumptions of the projects are:
1. The project team members: Tamara Page (coordinator of the Masters of Clinical
Nursing), Yvette Salamon (clinical tutor), Trisha Franceschilli (eLearning advisor)
and Dayle Soong (eLearning advisor) will be available when required;
2. The students and staff participating in the trial will have access to the ePortfolio
tool only for the trial duration.
Pre-Feasibility Report, version 1.0
Page 12 of 31
Student placement e-Assessment
6. Options
The following solution options have been considered for this project:
1. Do Nothing (Current state)
2. Open source software
3. Commercial products
4. Common access technologies in the cloud
5. In-house developed system
See below a brief explanation of each of them.
6.1. Do Nothing
This option is to keep the based-paper portfolio and not to pursue ePortfolios. The main
issues with paper-based portfolios that have been identified are:
 The based-paper portfolio is cumbersome;
 A paper-based portfolio does not enable ongoing feedback from lectures and
peers;
 A paper-based portfolio does not contribute to the student eLearning experience.
6.1.1. Advantages
The advantages are:
 There is no implementation risk;
 There is no implementation cost.
6.1.2. Disadvantages
The disadvantages are:
 The University’s faculty will continue using a cumbersome portfolio;
 A paper-based portfolio does not enable ongoing feedback from lectures
and peers;
 Online submission, marking and feedback in regard to student placements
during a program is inefficient;
 There is no central location for students to accumulate evidence for
professional registration requirements;
 This option entails a high risk of loss of documentation.
6.2. Open source software
Open source software initiatives, such as Open Source Portfolio (OSP), iFolio or Mahara
are available in the marketplace to meet the ePortfolio needs. Different Universities all
over the world have adopted open source software initiatives over the last few years.
One of the most popular open source ePortfolio software is Mahara. Some Australian
tertiary institutions have already adopted Mahara as an institutional wide ePortfolio such
as the University of Southern Queensland, Wollongong University, the University of
Central Queensland, Federation University (Ballart) and the University of South Australia
among others.
Pre-Feasibility Report, version 1.0
Page 13 of 31
Student placement e-Assessment
These open source portfolios are informed and managed by a community of users. This
may significantly lower the development cost, but make the development vulnerable to
the community dynamics, and the implementing organisation is still required to either
provide technical infrastructure or use an external hosting service.
6.2.1. Technical Feasibility
Hosting and technical requirements
An open source ePortfolio can be either externally or self-hosted.
Currently, the University of Adelaide has a virtual server with an installation of an
early version of Mahara; however, this installation is not currently supported.
Technical expertise will be needed to upgrade to the last version of Mahara and to
ensure all technical requirements are met. The technical specifications for the
Mahara’s working environment are: Linux (Server OS) + Apache (Web Server) +
PostgreSQL (Database Server) + PHP (Language).
If Mahara is self-hosted, internal technical resources will be responsible for
software and server maintenance, backup and data storage as well as software
upgrades. In-house expertise will be required.
For external hosting of Mahara, the Mahara community recommended business
partners can provide this project with external hosting services.
If Mahara is externally hosted, the Mahara Partner will be responsible for server
maintenance, installation of Mahara, backup (including upgrades) and data
storage arrangements under a hosting cost plan. Ongoing software maintenance
will be responsibility of the system owner.
The hosts would manage users access to their instance of Mahara.
Users’ device requirements to work with the software
Mahara is a web-based ePortfolio supported by multiple user devices. The
recommended Web Browsers are the last version of Firefox, Chrome, Safari, or
Opera; or IE 9-11.
6.2.2. Advantages
The advantages of this option are:
 It will be quicker to implement (especially if externally hosted);
 There is no license cost involved;
 Customization of the software is available as it is an open source. When
customising the software, it is recommended to use Plug-ins instead of
making direct changes to the software. Plug-ins could be developed by the
University’s technical resources to get the required additional functionality
following the development guidelines of the open source software;
 All the essential ePortfolio functionalities have been already built in this
open source ePortfolio software;
 Additional characteristics of Mahara are:
o It is wide used among the education sector and has been used by
Universities in Australia and around the world;
o It supports the Leap2A import/export ePortfolio standard;
o It allows users to export as HTML or PDF (plug-in required);
Pre-Feasibility Report, version 1.0
Page 14 of 31
Student placement e-Assessment
o
o
o
o
It can be used as a stand-alone system or integrated with
Blackboard. The Auckland University of Technology has developed
an integration between Blackboard and Mahara (customization will
be required);
It can be integrated with Google Apps, Google Drive and
RSS/Atom;
The majority of user information is default private. Additionally, the
user has multiple choices of how, who and for how long third parties
can have access;
It allows most standard file formats to be uploaded.
6.2.3. Disadvantages
The disadvantages of this option are:
 Internal technical support will be required to administrate and maintain the
software; then, new technical skills will be needed by the team supporting
the ePortfolio;
 The ePortfolio development is vulnerable to the community dynamics.
6.3. Commercial products
Commercial off-the-shelf (COTS) ePortfolios are widely used such as PebblePad,
Desire2Learn, eWebfolio or Career Board.
One of the most popular COTS ePortfolio is PebblePad. Australian Universities that are
trialling or have already adopted PebblePad include: James Cook, La Trobe, Murdoch,
Charles Sturt, Tasmania, RMIT, Sydney, and Victoria.
Commercial off-the shelf products are relatively quick to implement, but tend to provide
one-size-fits-all functionality and not support customization at an institutional level.
6.3.1. Technical Feasibility
Hosting and technical requirements
A commercial off-the-shelf product can be externally or self-hosted.
In regard to PebblePad, this is a standard web based system built on a three-tier
web application with the presentation layer on the client. The technical
specifications for the PebblePad’s working environment are: Windows 2005 or
2008 server with .NET 3.5 (Server OS), SQL Server 2005 or 2008 (Database
Server).
If PebblePad is self-hosted, internal technical resources will be responsible for
server maintenance, software upgrades/updates, backup and data storage
arrangements. In-house expertise will be required.
If PebblePad is externally hosted, PebblePad will be responsible for software and
server maintenance (including upgrades/updates), backup and data storage
arrangements under a hosting cost plan.
Users are ‘licensed’ to use PebblePad, which is either issued by an organisation to
a user or as individual subscriptions to the service.
Pre-Feasibility Report, version 1.0
Page 15 of 31
Student placement e-Assessment
Users’ device requirements to work with the software
PebblePad requires Flash 8 Player or newer to be installed on client systems.
6.3.2. Advantages
The advantages of this option are:
 It is quicker to implement (especially if externally hosted);
 No internal resources will be needed to do any fixes or maintain the
software since this is done by the vendor and is included in the licence
cost;
 Additional characteristics of PebblePad are:
o It is used within the education sector and has been used by
Universities in Australia and around the world;
o All the essential ePortfolio functionalities are built in this tool;
o It supports the Leap2A import/export ePortfolio standard;
o It allows users to export as HTML or PDF;
o It can be used as a stand-alone system or integrated Blackboard
and student management/database systems;
o The majority of user information is default private. Additionally, the
user has multiple choices of how, who and for how long third parties
can have access;
o It allows most standard file formats to be uploaded;
o It has reflective templates available.
6.3.3. Disadvantages
The disadvantages of this option are:
 It tends to provide one-size-fits-all functionality and not support
customization at an institutional level. This is determined by the vendor and
included in future versions;
 In regard to PebblePad, it requires Flash to work and this is not supported
by iOS. There is an Apple app available for PebblePad but it has a cost
associated.
6.4. Common access technologies in the cloud
Open access tools in the cloud, such as Google and WordPress, are flexible, userfriendly technologies, however they are not education-specific, thus their academic
integration may be quite challenging.
6.4.1. Technical Feasibility
These technologies are open access, web-based and hosted in the cloud
(externally hosted).
There are not infrastructure requirements as these tools are externally hosted.
6.4.2. Advantages
The advantages of this option are:
 These tools are flexible;
 They are user-friendly technologies;
 They are free to use on a basic or education level;
Pre-Feasibility Report, version 1.0
Page 16 of 31
Student placement e-Assessment

For Google Sites and Wordpress.com, the tools meet the following criteria
to an excellent level:
o Have built-in storage capabilities which are an adequate size;
o Have an adequate range of themes and templates to enhance
presentation;
o Offer restricted access in addition to public;
o Easy to share with audience;
o Be viewable and/or editable on mobile device app or browser, or
from a desktop;
o Be well supported by tool community and/or help features;
o Be capable of storing reflective posts easily;
o Be capable of social communication and/or collaborative
opportunities.
Google Sites is easier to use while WordPress is capable of storing
reflective posts easily.
6.4.3. Disadvantages
The disadvantages of this option are:
 It is not education-specific;
 Their academic integration may be quite challenging;
 Issue regarding server locations and security would need to be addressed;
especially if we consider that the University does not have a policy in place
addressing cloud-based issues.
6.5. In-house developed system
The in-house developed systems often offer high levels of customisation as they are
purpose-built to the specific requirements of the institution, but can be challenging to
coordinate across the institution and may have high initial development and
infrastructure cost.
According to the University’s ICT Principles (Application Architecture Principles section),
“when deciding on architectures to implement, the preference will be to leverage and
reuse existing solutions, second to purchase new package solutions, and thirdly to build
custom solutions”.
6.5.1. Technical Feasibility
If an ePortfolio is developed in-house, it will be developed under the current University’s
IT policies and within the University’s Standard Operating Environment framework.
Therefore, it will be technically feasible.
As part of the planning phase, it must be evaluated if the necessary hardware to develop
and run the system is currently available; otherwise, hardware must be purchased.
Additionally, the skills and time to develop the system must be also considered.
6.5.2. Advantages
The advantages of this option are:
 An ePortfolio built in-house offers high levels of customisation as it is
purpose-built to the specific stakeholder requirements;
 Integration with University’s system should be easy as it is purpose-built.
6.5.3. Disadvantages
The disadvantages of this option are:
Pre-Feasibility Report, version 1.0
Page 17 of 31
Student placement e-Assessment



Pre-Feasibility Report, version 1.0
An ePortfolio built in-house will take longer to implement;
Staff resources must be allocated for development (development cost);
Infrastructure must be included in the implementation cost.
Page 18 of 31
Student placement e-Assessment
6.6. Comparison of Options
6.6.1. Project objectives, cost, implementation time and functionality criteria
Criteria
Do Nothing
Open source
software
1. Project Objectives
1.1 Enable more efficient online submission,
marking and feedback in regard to clinical
placements during a program without tying
each placement to a course for assessment;
1.2 Enable students to collect evidence of
competencies, core skills and attributes that
employers want to see on completion of their
program;
1.3 Provide a mechanism to encourage student
reflection which has the potential to assist
with students’ understanding of their own
learning;
1.4 Allow portfolio information to be stored,
accessed, updated and presented in various
electronic and paper based formats;
1.5 Provide a location for students to accumulate
evidence for professional registration
requirements;
1.6 Support
achievement
competencies
Pre-Feasibility Report, version 1.0
of
professional
Page 19 of 31
Commercial
products
Common access
technologies in
the cloud
In-house
developed
system
Student placement e-Assessment
2. Cost (implementation)
If externally hosted
3. Cost (on-going per annum if ePortfolio is
mainstreamed)*
If externally hosted
If externally hosted
4. Time to implement
NA
5. ePortfolio functionalities
5.1 Templates
NA
Very flexible
5.2 Flexible layout
NA
5.3 Text editor (toolbar)
NA
limited
5.4 Embedding pictures and videos
NA
5.5 Hyperlink to external sources
NA
5.6 Upload any types of file
NA
5.7 Summative view of online records
NA
5.8 Authentication
NA
Single sign-on is
possible
and
integration
with
LMS (plug-in)
Pre-Feasibility Report, version 1.0
Page 20 of 31
Single sign-on is
possible
and
integration
with
LMS
Single sign-on
possible
is
Student placement e-Assessment
5.9
Range of sharing permissions
5.10
5.11
Portability (export)
Interoperability standards
NA
NA
Html and Leap2A
Html and Leap2A
Supports Leap2A
Supports Leap2A
NA
5.12
Print
NA
5.13
Integrated resume builder
NA
5.14
Integrated blog tool
NA
But offers lifelong
access for students
Key:
Does not meet criteria/ Costly / Longer to
implement
Partially meets criteria/ Medium cost/ Some time
to implement
Fully meets criteria/ Minimal cost
implement/ Quick to implement
* The commercial product has more expensive licensing cost than an external hosted open source solution.
Analysis
After analysing the 5 proposed options against the above criteria, it is concluded that ‘Do Nothing’ is not a viable option as it does not meet the
project objectives and is not in line with the Beacon of Enlightenment vision.
For the ‘In-house developed system’ option, as this option is purpose built, all the required functionalities could be implemented; however, it
would be very costly and would take time to implement. Additionally, the University’s ICT Principles (Application Architecture Principles section)
highlights that when deciding on architectures to implement, the preference will be to leverage and reuse existing solutions, second to purchase
new package solutions and thirdly to build custom solutions. As there are not existing University’s solutions to be leveraged for ePortfolio (our
current Blackboard installation does not include the ePortfolio module), the preference is to get an ePortfolio solution from the marketplace.
Therefore, the ePortfolio options to consider for trial are: ‘Open source software’ (Mahara), ‘Commercial products’ (PebblePad), and ‘Common
access technologies in the cloud’ (GoogleSites / WordPress). The following section of this document (6.6.2 Additional criteria) will include a
comparison between these three options to determine the best option for trial.
Pre-Feasibility Report, version 1.0
Page 21 of 31
to
Student placement e-Assessment
6.6.2. Additional Criteria (refer to Apendix A – Criteria for Assessing Requests for scoring criteria)
Criteria
Open source software
Commercial products
Mahara
PebblePad
Common access
technologies in the cloud
GoogleSites/WordPress
1. What is the degree of alignment between the software and
teaching and learning strategies?
10
10
10
2. What is the degree of alignment between the software and
University’s ICT governance principles?
10
10
10
3. How easy is the software to use?
5
5
10
4. What is the technical feasibility of the software at the
University of Adelaide?
10
10
10
5. What is the estimated workload for the pilot on the various
teams?
3
3
3
6. Does the software carry any legal aspects or risks?
7. Is the software compatible with Blackboard/MyUni?
3
3
0
For an external hosting, there are
legal
risks
associated
with
jurisdiction, privacy and security,
particularly with offshore offerings
For an external hosting, there
are legal risks associated with
jurisdiction,
privacy
and
security,
particularly
with
offshore offerings
there are legal risks associated
with jurisdiction, privacy and
security, particularly with offshore
offerings
3
6
There is a Mahara plug-in for
integration with Blackboard that
will need to be customised to fit
the University’s purpose
3
Re WordPress, integration could
be done through Word Press
Integration Kit
8. Does the software work across various platforms?
2
0
2
9. How widespread
University?
would the usage be across the
10
10
10
10. Is the software available through a site licence that does
not limit the number of users?
6
0
6
11. Is this ePortfolio tool used within the higher education
sector for clinical placements?
10
10
0
72
67
64
TOTAL SCORE
Pre-Feasibility Report, version 1.0
Page 22 of 31
Student placement e-Assessment
6.7. Recommended Option
Based on the comparison in the previous section, the “common access technologies in the
cloud”, the “open source software” and the “commercial products” options have a very close
score and are viable for trial, with the “open source software” option having the highest score
against the ‘additional criteria’ in section 6.6.2 of this document.
The preferred open source ePortfolio tool for trial is Mahara, which is being extensively used
by Universities in Australia.
Pre-Feasibility Report, version 1.0
Page 23 of 31
Student placement e-Assessment
7. Project Costs
7.1. Trial cost

For the Mahara option, the estimated trial cost would be as follows:
ITEMS
Year 2014 Cost
Source of funds
Internal resources
Academics
$4,000 Faculty of
(marking relief – approx. Sciences
Health
100 hours)
eLA’s
$0 LTT
MyUni support
resources
$0 LTT
Business Analyst
$0 LTT
Hosting
External hosting
$1,025 Faculty of
(per quarter and includes: Sciences
Health

a web server with
15Gb of hard disk
space

75Gb of monthly
bandwidth

Mahara installed and
configured with your
URL

Remote
nightly
backups and regular
upgrades
12 Months of help desk
support provided to the
site administrator @ 1.25
hours per month)
Internal Hosting
Hardware &
installation
of Mahara
Training
Other
TOTAL TRIAL
Pre-Feasibility Report, version 1.0
$0 Technology
Services
$0 LTT
N/A
$5,025
Page 24 of 31
Student placement e-Assessment
8. Project Organisation
Stakeholder
Role
Responsibilities
TBC
Steering Committee
Manage scope and cost. Manage
project operational and political issues
and risks. Resolve obstacles.
TBC
Project Sponsor
Ensure that the project delivers the
agreed business benefits. Ensure the
project is under control. Approving key
project deliverables. Resolve issues
that are beyond the control of the
Project Manager. Resolve conflict and
removing obstacles to progress.
TBC
Project Manager
Plan, execute and manage the people,
resources and scope of the project.
Tamara Page
Project Leader
Provide leadership and subject matter
expertise to ensure the project meets
the clinical placement assessment
requirements
and
the
employer
competency requirements.
Subject Matter Expert
Provide subject matter expertise to
ensure the project meets the clinical
placement assessment requirements
and
the
employer
competency
requirements.
Faculty
of
Health
Science – coordinator of
the Master of Clinical
Nursing
Yvette Salamon
Faculty
of
Health
Science – clinical tutor
Dayle Soong
eLearning educational Provide expertise in regard to the
design support
ePortfolio platform and ePortfolio
design.
eLearning adviser
Trisha Franceschilli
eLearning educational Provide expertise in regard to the
design support
ePortfolio platform and ePortfolio
design.
eLearning adviser
Mark Wittervan
Program
MyUni
Manager
Karina Judson
-
Senior Supplier – Provide the MyUni support staff
Learning
resources & business analyst resource
Technologies Team
required by the project.
Business Analyst
Ensure the ePortfolio
business requirements.
TBC
Trial participants
Trial the ePortfolio
feedback on it.
TBC
Technical resources
Administrate and provide support for
the ePortfolio tool.
Business Analyst
Pre-Feasibility Report, version 1.0
meets
and
Page 25 of 31
the
provide
Student placement e-Assessment
9. Timeframes
Milestones
Schedule
Pre-feasibility report approved
TBC
Pilot Plan endorsed
TBC
ePortfolio software deployed
TBC
Commence PoC/Pilot testing
TBC
Finalise PoC/Pilot testing
TBC
Pilot Evaluation Report approved
TBC
Pre-Feasibility Report, version 1.0
Page 26 of 31
Student placement e-Assessment
10. Risks
See below the risks of trialling the recommended solution option: ‘Open source software – Mahara’:
Ref #
Risk
1
Technical resources & academic staff involved in the trial
are not available when needed.
Likelihood
Consequence
Risk Rating
B
2
Medium
Control


As part of the Pre-feasibility study
approval, technical resources
must be allocated to the project
Careful communication (including
next activities and timeframe) to
all parties so as to ensure
resources are made available
when needed.
2
If solution option is hosted externally, there might be legal
risks associated with jurisdiction, privacy and security,
particularly with offshore offerings.
B
2
Medium

It is recommended to self-host
Mahara. If this recommendation
is not approved and Mahara must
be externally hosted:
o Technology Services should
provide clear direction of how
to deal with cloud services, as
there is not a current policy for
cloud
services
at
the
University.
o Request the Service Level
Agreement from the company
providing the hosting service
and agree on the terms.
3
Future upgrades to the ePortfolio solution and
interoperability of this solution with other ePortfolios is
difficult or impossible to achieve as result of changes made
to the solution by University’s technical resources.
B
2
Medium

When
customising
the
solution, it is recommended to
use Plug-ins instead of making
direct changes to the solution.
Pre-Feasibility Report, version 1.0
Page 27 of 31
Student placement e-Assessment
Plug-ins could be developed
by the University’s technical
resources to get the required
additional
functionality
following the development
guidelines of the open source
software.
Despite these risks the project would appear to be viable at this stage, and it would appear that each of these risks would be able to be
effectively mitigated.
Pre-Feasibility Report, version 1.0
Page 28 of 31
Student placement e-Assessment
11. Recommendations
The project team recommends LTSG the following:
1. To approve the trial of an ePortfolio for student placements;
2. To use Mahara as the ePortfolio solution to trial based on the evaluation carried
out in this report;
3. To self-host Mahara for this trial. It is important to mention that external hosting
alternative might have legal risk associated with jurisdiction, privacy and security,
particularly with offshore offerings since there is no policy for the use of cloud
services at the University;
4. For TS, to provide a virtual server with an installation of the last version of
Mahara for this trial purposes.
The minimum hardware requirements for Mahara are:
a. CPU: any modern CPU produced in the last few years is fine, the faster
the better naturally. PHP pages are CPU limited, so faster CPUs mean
quicker response times.
b. Memory: 256MB at an absolute minimum. 1G or more is recommended.
c. Disk: This will depend largely on how much disk quota you want each
user to have. For a site of 1000 users, each with a 250M quota, you might
need 50G to start with.
The recommended software platform for Mahara is:
d. Server OS: Linux - Debian Lenny or later, and Ubuntu Lucid or later, are
the distributions that the core developers use, and so Mahara is best
tested there.
e. Web Server: Apache - 2.0 or greater
f. Database Server: PostgreSQL - 8.3 or greater
g. Language: PHP - 5.3 or greater (the elasticsearch plugin [currently in
development for Mahara 1.8] requires 5.3.3 or greater)
For further information about technical requirements for Mahara refer to Mahara
System’s Administrator Guide.
Pre-Feasibility Report, version 1.0
Page 29 of 31
Student placement e-Assessment
12. References
Butler, P. 2006 A review of literature on portfolios and electronic portfolios. Massey
University College of Education, Palmerston North.
Garrett B & Jackson, C 2006. A mobile clinical ePortfolio for nursing and medical
students, using wireless personal digital assistants (PDAs). Nurse Education in Practice.
JISC, 2008. Effective practice with e-Portfolios [pdf]: HEFCE. Available at:
http://www.jisc.ac.uk/media/documents/publications/effectivepracticeeportfolios.pdf
[Accessed 03 Sep 2014].
Sutherland, S. and Powell, A. 2007, Cetis
[www.jiscmail.ac.uk/archives/cetis-portfolio.html].
Pre-Feasibility Report, version 1.0
SIG
mailing
list
discussions
Page 30 of 31
Student placement e-Assessment
Appendix A – Request Assessment as per Criteria
for Assessing requests
Criteria
Rank
Weighting
(M –
Mandatory;
(M – 5;
D – Desirable;
O – 1)
0 points
1 point
2 points
D – 3;
O – Optional)
What is the degree of
alignment between the
software and teaching and
learning strategies?
M
5
Low alignment
Minimal alignment
Good
alignment
What is the degree of
alignment between the
software
and
the
University’s ICT governance
principles?
M
5
Low alignment
Minimal alignment
Good
alignment
How easy is the software to
use?
M
5
Difficult to use
Somewhat
to use
Easy to use
What is the technical
feasibility of the software
at Adelaide University?
M
5
Not feasible )
Somewhat feasible
Feasible
What is the estimated
workload for the pilot on
the various teams?
D
3
Quite a lot
workload
Some workload
Not a lot of
workload
Does the software carry
any legal aspects or risks?
D
3
Considerable
legal aspects or
risks
Some legal aspects
or risks
No
aspects
risks
Is the software compatible
with Blackboard/MyUni?
D
3
Not compatible
Somewhat
compatible
Compatible
Does the software work
across various platforms?
O
1
No
How widespread would the
usage be across the
University?
M
5
Not likely to be
used across the
University
Is the software available
through a site licence that
does not limit the number
of users?
D
3
No
Is this ePortfolio tool used
within the higher education
sector
for
clinical
placements? *
M
5
Not likely to be
used within the
higher education
sector
of
difficult
Yes
Some use across the
University
Widespread
use across the
University
Yes
Some use within the
higher
education
sector
* This criteria has been added to evaluate ePortfolio tools for clinical placements
Pre-Feasibility Report, version 1.0
legal
or
Page 31 of 31
Widespread
use within the
higher
education
sector