An RPL portfolio format

Ross Woods, 2020

Question

We have a student who has finished a major task taking many months, and has various documents that describe what he did (proposal, reports, evaluation, etc.). We assessed his work and he has now passed; he has shown that he has achieved all the competencies of the major project for his Master degree.

However, the degree requirements also state that the major project should be submitted as a formal document. What should it look like?

Answer

The final portfolio needs to appear as an academically credible piece of work. That is, written items need to well-edited and well presented. The format needs to enable someone to read and understand the document even if they knew nothing about the project.

These have several practical implications.

It needs a title page that follows the general format of any other thesis, dissertation, or project. It has to give basic identification of what it is about, who did it, the institution to which it was submitted, the credit for which it was submitted, and when it was submitted. See below for an example.

It needs a table of contents so that readers can find things. This has several implications:

  1. Pagination follows the normal rules for theses and dissertations, that is, it starts at the first page of the introduction.
  2. Each document needs a title or similar identifier.

It needs an introduction to give the reader an introductory description of the project, for example, when and where it was done, the community or target population, why it was done, the approach taken, and how it ended. If the student met some requirements by means other than the portfolio (e.g. an interview), then this should be reported in the introduction. This prevents the reader from getting the impression that the portfolio has gaps.

The actual documents from a real project were probably not written to specifically address the units that apply to the project, so the student has probably met some requirements by means other than the portfolio (e.g. an assessment interview). The report, however, must be written in such a way to prevent the reader from the impression that the project has gaps. Consequently, this other information must be reported somewhere in the document. It could be in either the introduction or in each chapter, whichever is most appropriate. The less that is reported in the enclosed documents, the more extensive the other reporting must become.

The remainder of the document goes through the project in stages with a separate chapter for each stage. The stages are typically:

  1. planning and approval,
  2. preparation,
  3. implementation, and
  4. evaluation and conclusion.

Each chapter should commence with its own brief introduction so that the reader can make sense of the documents and understand why they were included. The documents are then enclosed in the chapter in an order that readers can understand (e.g. chronological order). It should be clear who wrote each document and when it was written.

The binding should follow the institution's normal practice for projects and portfolios.

Exceptions

  1. If the source documents use a larger paper size than is normal for theses and dissertations, the supervisor should allow the student to submit the portfolio in a larger size.
  2. If the institution normally includes an assessment statement or approval page in projects, then it should follow its normal practice for the RPL portfolio.
  3. If a chapter gets too long or convoluted for readers to follow, it should be divided into separate chapters.
  4. If any individual documents are confidential, the whole project will follow the terms of confidentiality of those original documents. Some institutions have arrangements to protect confidential theses, dissertations, and projects. This would also normally apply if personal information would be disclosed in contravention of ethical guidelines.
  5. If sources have been used without also providing bibliographic details, a bibliography will be necessary.

So what's different?

Not much differs from the normal thesis layout. First, source documents are included in the main text of the chapters, not in the appendices. Second, they might carry the weight of information to be communicated to the reader. (Some more conservative circles would view these two aspects as quite innovative.)

The Institutional Review Board does not need to approve the project for two reasons. First, the project has already been done. Second, if the student had acted unethically during the project, it should not have been given a passing grade.

Example title page

 

Planting a Church in Cumberville, North Dakota1

 

Joseph B. Blow2

 

A portfolio3 submitted to the faculty of the Black Stump University4 in partial requirements
for the units PRJ819 Project planning, PRJ820 Project implementation,
and PRJ821 Project evaluation in the Master of Divinity5

December, 20196

1The main topic     2Who wrote it     3What kind of document it is     4The institution to which it was submitted     5The requirement addressed     6When it was submitted