This is a context scenario for these personas:
- Jan, nursing professor
- Vaughn, preceptor
Jan and her students have quite an extensive history with portfolios as long-term assessments. The first portfolios were binders with papers, examined, commented on and returned for further development, and finally graded, by passing them back and forth among the student and appropriate parties. The student advisor was responsible for including the letters that constituted preceptor assessments. Jan served as an advisor to individual students as well as supervisor of the whole process; she plays both the formative reviewer role and the summative evaluator role. Jan and the other nursing advisors designed the student portfolio to capture student work and reflections across the entire curriculum, graded in the capstone course, and also to allow re-purposing as a student job-seeking tool for any who so chose. See sibling pages for complete narratives on this standard application.
After years of directing students through practica, making feedback from herself and the preceptor as constructive as possible, Jan has realized that her students have good grasp of nursing, but lack a professional mien. They do not appear confident in public talks or private consultations. One of the preceptors, Vaughn, mentioned this to Jan in conversation over coffee. She proposes to address this with a new requirement for a community health presentation related to the practicum, which will also bring more information directly to the people who need it. Jan's students will give a talk to their student peers as a practice run for the community presentation, and Jan wants all the other students to provide peer reviews. She wants a standard critique form, with five or six simple questions about content (emphasizing accuracy and completeness), organization, and style, to be filled out for each speaker by each other student, and to become part of the subject student's formative portfolio materials. These peer reviews should not be seen by other viewers such as preceptors. Jan has not decided whether she herself should see these critiques-- perhaps they would work best as strictly private peer comments. She knows what she wants to bring up; she can sketch out the form in just a few minutes, based on her depth of experience. And she definitely wants to know that each student has completed her or his critiques and given them to the others, to document a modest instance of critical thinking-- which can be noted on the CCNE accreditation for the Nursing programs, per http://www.aacn.nche.edu/Accreditation/PubsBaccGrad.htm.
Jan is also pondering an refinement in the practica. Clinic assignments differ in several significant ways-- the geographical location and its characteristics, the level of authority and the duration of the duty, the degree of involvement of the preceptor. Vaughn, a regular preceptor, varies in his interest. Sometimes he dashes off a brief and banal evaluation, and sometimes he writes more fully about a student's strong and weak areas. (Perhaps more guidance should be available to the preceptors.) Jan wants to give the students who have the short assignments, or easier situations (as judged by Jan herself) to perform some extra work, perhaps delving more deeply into the area covered by the practicum. She is currently thinking about what form this extra work might take, and how it might touch on community health. She is browsing through her records of the clinic assignments and preceptors, some of whom have been on the list for years, and some of whom have recently been added. She can't remember all the details of the assignments, although she has noted them to herself in the past... somewhere.
Intended to bring in two use cases-- (1) peer review of each student, and (2) a portfolio of support materials.