The concept of portfolios first emerged in Renaissance Italy when artists and architects began collecting examples of their work in a folder (Dorn, Sabol, & Madeja, 2013). The word portfolio comes from the Italian portafogli, from portare 'carry' + foglio 'leaf' (from Latin folium). From the art world the term spread to the education sector in the 1970s. In an education context, a portfolio is used to document the students’ process, progress and skills over time. The use of ePortfolios in higher education has been documented by numerous studies. They first came into use in the early 1990s (Farrell, 2020). The concept is variably known as eFolios, iFolios, web folios and ePortfolios.

In modern higher music education, a digital portfolio is a collection of the student’s works in the form of text, audio files, videos, pictures, journals etc. The use of such portfolios in education and academia has soared in the past decade, and research suggests that they can be a valuable tool for reflection and deep learning (Kabilan & Khan, 2012; Bennett et al., 2014). ePortfolios are used in academia in a variety of ways. They can be public or private, they can be shared with selected networks or with just a single teacher. They can involve describing a process, serve as an archive or journal, be used to submit assignments or provide assessment, allow the student to present themselves to potential employers, be focused on particular topics and themes, or address other aspects of student life.

When launching the portfolio project, we opted to add the word “core” as the portfolio was intended to serve as a nucleus from which to navigate – an ever-present core which can be leant on and used as a navigation tool. The core portfolio aimed to give the students deeper insights into their development processes. It was to give the students an overview of their musical work and potentially also encourage awareness, critical thinking and dialogue around their musical development and artistic profile. The portfolio was intended as a tool for reflection, as a safe space for thinking about identity and choices, and was to provide an insight into the students’ development in the form of lists of performances, concerts and projects.

We also wanted the portfolio to serve as a communication channel between the student and their teachers in order to keep the teachers up to date with what the student was doing musically, both at and outside the academy. While portfolios are often used in education to showcase your skills externally (“frontstage”), the main focus of this project was the reflective process. The core portfolio was therefore planned as a dedicated, safe space for reflection that would not be put on display or assessed (“backstage”) by anyone other than selected people (Krill & Saltofte, 2017).

The objectives of the portfolio were linked to the four keywords review, retrospection, outlook and introspection. The keywords were translated into concrete reflective exercises.

The students were initially asked to create a presentation of who they were and of their musical and academic background. That way they could take a retrospective look at themselves: who am I, and who have I been so far in my musical life? They were set associated assignments, such as listing five “defining musical moments”: musical listening and/or performing experiences that have been important to them. Creating a list of works would allow them to review their musical development to the benefit of both the students themselves and their teachers. At the end of each semester the students were tasked with listing all musical work they had completed in the past six months (works list, specialisation, concerts/gigs, band/chamber performances, projects etc.). They were able to include audio and video with examples of rehearsals or concerts.

The students were also asked to produce some text to reflect on their personal development and choices to date in order to gain an introspective insight into their personal process and to examine their outlook for future orientation and opportunities for exploration. They were asked questions such as “What activities have you found the most interesting in the past six months?” and “Looking back at the last six months, what has been important in/to your musical development?”. The students were also encouraged to look forward and set themselves a few goals for the immediate future: “What wishes and goals do you have for the coming six months in terms of your performance and musical development?”

To enable the students to put the core portfolio into practice, the first project module trialled three different practice models in the form of exercises and forums.

Most of the 20 students would attend two one-to-one meetings with a mentor over the academic year – one at the end of each semester. These students’ work on their portfolios should be focused on development with particular emphasis on reflecting over their personal development.

The second group of students would meet as a group with a mentor present. This group was to assume a project-driven focus whereby the students had to chronicle and reflect on a project or specific musical undertaking carried out during the academic year.

The third group worked on their portfolios as part of the elective course “Reflection in Artistic Practice”, run by Nyhus. The focus for this group was reflection-driven. The elective course saw the students complete reflective exercises which were then added to the portfolio. The students in this group were to keep their main instrument teachers updated on their work with the portfolio.

All three models gave the students set deadlines for completing their assignments and for showing the contents to someone. They also completed additional tasks and engaged in discussions in order to reflect on their development, choices and scope for exploration.

Mentors for the first project module were assigned so that the students would be meeting a mentor who did not play the same instrument as them and ideally also someone whose artistic/musical orientation differed from that of their main instrument teacher. The idea was to offer a perspective during these sessions that differed from the one the students encounter in their weekly main instrument lessons and to reinforce the team around the student.

Three of the mentors who agreed to take part represented a broad range of genres comprising jazz, improvisation, contemporary and classical. One of the mentors was a classical performer with extensive chamber music experience. Three of the mentors had a background in artistic research. All four mentors had wide-ranging experience as self-employed musicians both in Norway and abroad. The students meeting in groups were joined by a mentor who would structure and support the conversation. Since these students would be using their portfolios to focus on a current project or assignment, the meetings involved a half-hour presentation by each participant followed by a discussion. The students working on their portfolios as part of an elective course were able to meet more frequently and could therefore work on their reflective exercises in more depth and over time.