Northeastern is using the TaskStream eportfolio platform, which includes tools that enable faculty to design a wide range of eportfolio experiences.
The software has a student-centered design: students “own” their accounts on a subscription model and control how and when their work is shared. While a student has an account, s/he may create any number of eportfolios and respond to eportfolio assignments from faculty.
Eportfolios are, essentially, web sites. They may be designed to have different levels of structure or flexibility, incorporate different forms of feedback and assessment, and include multiple forms of media.
In the project descriptions found on the pages of this site, you may read certain terminology related to the TaskStream software. This section is meant to clarify this terminology.
Two types of portfolio
TaskStream includes two primary eportfolio formats: a folio and a DRF (defined response folio). Most faculty in the writing pilot project used a combination of formats. The following table summaries the features of folios and DRFs:
|Folios||DRFs (Defined Response Folio)|
• Flexible structure that students can completely edit
• Faculty can define structural template or students can "start from scratch"
• Students can attach text, documents, images, video, other file types
• Artifact types cannot be limited
• Directions can be inserted as text in a template
• Students can copy and make multiple versions
• Structure determined by faculty
• Students cannot edit structure
• Students submit specific requirements
• Faculty can limit the types of artifacts that can be submitted (i.e., attachments, video, links, images)
• Students can submit complete folios
• Faculty determine evaluation method and criteria; can be made visible to students
• Evaluation results can be aggregated into reports
• Directions for requirements can be inserted for students
• Student work is "locked" once it is submitted for evaluation
• Faculty can collect data through forms and aggregate it
Two types of feedback
TaskStream includes both a reviewer and an evaluator role for providing feedback and assessment. Again, most projects in this pilot used some combination of both roles. The following table compares the two:
|Comments/ Reviewer Role||Assessment/ Evaluator Role|
• Available in folios and DRFs
• Faculty and students can be given "reviewer" roles
• Students request comments from particular individuals and on particular pages
• Comments are added in a discussion thread format on particular pages
• Available only in DRFs
• Faculty assign evaluation criteria to requirements – rubric, pass/fail, meets/does not meet requirement
• Students submit work through a requirement
• Faculty evaluate work and optionally enter comments for students
• Faculty can record comments that are unavailable to student
• Work is locked for students once it is submitted