Comments Follow-up & Rubrics too…

One quick follow-up to my comments post yesterday. The way I am looking at comments assumes that there are at least two types of people, comments from the trusted community (with accounts on the system) and comments from outside. There is definitely a need to have comments be private in instructional – particularly assessment-related situations.

Treating a comment on par with a reflection emphasizes the value attached to a comment.

I’m also thinking that either individual (the person making the comment and the person receiving them) may want to re-use those comments/reflections for other contexts and purposes.

Why a content type/object? For re-use!

As a student, I may want to be able to indicate what an instructor thought of my work – or – perhaps use two comments and reflect on how those two comments, provided at different times, demonstrates my growth (increase in competency).

As an instructor I might want to do something similar — particularly with respect to a teaching portfolio. I may want to select a representative comment to demonstrate how I evaluate my students, or several to demonstrate how I have changed my approach over time.

These objects do need to be portable.

The same thing goes for my rubrics — or how I mark particular assignments or an overall portfolio. The assessment schema needs to be an object as well.

If we expect comments to re-used, that is serve as an artifact/item in a portfolio) then we need a very granular export capability within the eportfolio (granular portability). As well, the permissions capability needs to be quite granular as well…

I edited the sentence above. It originally said: “Granularity and portability… for both the content and permissions for re-use are important requirements to consider.”

This entry was posted in Electronic Portfolios. Bookmark the permalink.