Mirror, Mirror: Refining the Element in the IMS e-Portfolio Specification

The e-portfolio community would agree that reflection is a key part of learning, and by association, a key activity for owners of e-portfolios. The IMS e-portfolio specification includes a special <reflexion> element, designed to highlight this and separate it from other e-portfolio elements. But the distinction between reflexion and other e-portfolio elements in the IMS spec (notably, <assertion>) remains unclear, and this has the potential to affect the way that we understand and interpret identity, ownership, and activity in relation to e-portfolios. Pondering this, Scott Wilson asks:

Good question. The relevant bit of the IMS ePortfolio Best Practice Guide seems to be 3.1.7: Using Core Data Structures: Assertion / Reflexion. To the authors' credit, they've had a stab at defining reflection, but I find their definition insufficient because it raises questions similar to Scott's. The wording in 3.1.7 seems to me to mirror some slightly fuzzy thinking about the nature and role of reflection in e-portfolios. And the actual example of reflexion (XML format) given is alarmingly simplistic:

Am I the only one who finds this funny -- kind of?

Back to the IMS <reflexion> element. It seems clear that reflection is both an "activity" and an "item" (or "product"). <Assertion> is linked to <reflexion> because, as part of a reflective activity, a learner may make a connection between items (between ideas, objects, or persons) -- asserting that a relationship exists between them. So, where does reflection come in? Reflection, I would suggest, is the argument that backs up the assertion -- it is semantic, as well as syntactic. A reflective "argument" can take the form of evidence supplied by the learner, or it can take the form of an interpretation, an attribution of meaning. The phenomenon of hyperlinking has meant that the distinction between semantics and syntax, reflexion and assertion, has blurred. The act of creating a hyperlink (on the Web, or in an e-portfolio) is widely intended and interpreted as a functional argument: it encompasses both the assertion of a relationship and, at the same time, the supplying of evidence.

Sometimes, as Scott suggests, assertion operates in the same space as reputation (how I perceive others, and how others perceive me). <Assertion> therefore has a social element. But not always: <assertion> may also operate as part of a private reflection -- which the learner may choose to expose to others, thereby shifting something private / personal into the arena of the public / social.

Reflective activity in e-portfolios has to mean more than filling in a form-field titled "Reflection" (this is a problem with the current iteration of OSP). Reflective activity is complex and involves several levels of thought and activity on the part of the learner. We can point to educational theoretical models like Kolb's learning cycle act as the underpinning rationale and research basis for believing the reflection is relevant and important to learning. However, Kolb et. al. -- and, significantly, the now-familiar language of "folio thinking" and the e-portfolio community in general -- seem to emphasise "right-brain" thinking (holistic, visuospatial, emotive) over "left-brain" (verbal, linear, analytic). This seems to me, at least potentially, to create a top-level pedagogical problem and, taking different learning styles into account,  to neglect a major group of learners and, by extension, owners of e-portfolios.

The planned integration of VUE into Sakai seems, to my mind, to be a product of the current "left-brain bias" of folio thinking. I say this without wishing to disparage the use of visual tools or concept maps, which are particularly suitable for dyslexic students; and I am also very happy that visual tools are being gradually introduced into Sakai's very hierarchical, folder-centric information structure. My overall point is that our understandings and definitions of reflection have to address the reality of adaptability, switching, and unpredictability in learner preferences and learner behaviour. And they have to provide for future developments and refinements in neuropsychological / sociological understanding of learning, and consequent educational models.