Learning portfolio and metrics

03 September 2013

One of the reasons it is unlikely that we will ever get to a consensus on what an ideal learning portfolio should have or measure is that different skills will have different content and relevance depending on the situation. Not only that, but even the relationship among different skills will vary depending on the situation.

Here is an example: Think about a nurse researcher, who has a clinical practice as well as generates novel information for his field. Let's now assume that in this person's portfolio we add something about interpersonal skills. Well, interpersonal skills will be used differently if this person is in a clinical or research situations. Empathy is key for clinical encounters with patients, and will interplay significantly with clinical knowledge so that the nurse can not only connect to patients but also take the most appropriate clinical measures. Empathy is a different beast altogether in a research environment, where it might help the researcher establish connections within a give research network, but then be connected to research expertise.

Despite the differences between the two areas, what is common between the two is the value that stakeholders will give to a certain skill. For example, patients interacting with a highly empathic nurse might say that this is the most important characteristic ever, whereas in a research environment this might be something nice to have but significantly downplayed if the research skills are not up to par.

A way to summarize this is that portfolio's should be about what a person can do with what a person can do with a certain skill in a given environment much more than simply having the skill. In other words, we are looking for pragmatic, situated portfolios rather than theoretical ones. Exactly how to measure and display this is still an open question, at least to me.

by Ricardo Pietrobon