After a slight delay, last week I received the result of my CMALT (Certified Membership of the Association for Learning Technology) submission. While most of it was fine, the area which I had thought weakest, Core area 3: The wider context, was rated as inadequate. It has been lovely to see so many people celebrating gaining their CMALT over the last few months; and many of them have said how useful they found it to have access to examples of successful portfolios, which has also been my experience, but in the hope that it is also useful to see examples that fall short, and also in the hope that some of you might be able to provide feedback on improving it, I thought I would share here my unsuccessful portfolio.
The whole portfolio as submitted is available on Google docs, and the feedback from the assessors is here, but to focus on the area which needs attention, here is a copy of section 3 on Google docs, to which I have added the assessors comments. The overall comments from the assessors are also worth noting:
Overall an articulate and insightful portfolio accompanied by appropriate evidence and contextualised reflection in most areas. However, in order to award a pass some minor amendments are required in Section 3a – Understanding and engaging with legislation, policies and standards: in particular, Area 1- student needs, and Area 2 – copyright, licensing and other IPR. Both of these areas require a greater depth and breadth of reflection. The details of this requirement are noted in the comments panel for each area.
These amendments would demonstrate to the assessors that the candidate has engaged with an appropriate level of reflection required in respect to the subjects chosen, which can have significant impact and influence on pedagogic practices in the use of educational technologies.
I have added the more specific comments from the marking table to the copy of section 3, and have added as suggestions my initial thoughts on how I might address these (those thoughts might be difficult to follow, think of them as scribbled aide-memoirs rather than a draft). If anyone would like to add their own comments or suggestions that would hugely appreciated. I really would like to think deeper about these issues, and it would help to know what I am missing.
When I was writing my portfolio I wrote that “I think I have learnt more by writing this than through any other thing I’ve done in the last five years.” I think much of the value in a CMALT is in the learning opportunity it presents, but it is also good to know that the assessment and feedback are robust, at least to the extent that the assessors succeeded in recognising those areas which I thought were weakest.