June2007/MHW
E-portfolio report
Mary-Helen Ward, Acting Project Manager, USyd ELearning
Dr Rob Ellis, Director, USyd eLearning
This report is meant as a preliminary investigation into dimensions of e-portfolios as they are
represented in practice and some literature internationally. It is not meant to be an exhaustive
review, rather a way of structuring the space of e-portfolios relevant to campus-based universities
such as Sydney.
Contents
Introduction
Background
Questions
Value and costs of e-portfolio systems
Summary
References
Appendix 1 – examples of e-portfolio systems
Appendix 2 - tools in e-portfolio systems
Appendix 3 – e-portfolio conference October 2007
Introduction
The use of portfolios to enhance teaching and learning is a world-wide trend. In the UK, universities
are now mandated to provide their students with a tool to measure and record their personal
development (a Personal Development Profile/Plan or PDP), and e-portfolio tools are generally
being found to be a convenient way to do this (Ward, 2006). In the US many institutions have begun
to provide e-portfolio tools for their students; the US undergraduate system of generic degrees
(presently being adopted at some institutions in Australia) lends itself well to the formulaic style of
e-portfolio, in which a student can measure progress through an entire degree course according to
pre-determined parameters. Australian universities are slowly adopting e-portfolios, and some of the
pressure to do so is generated by the need for professional courses to demonstrate the acquisition of
competencies to registration and professional bodies.
One of the foremost theorists in the uses of e-portfolios in education, Helen Barrett (2004), suggests
three general classifications for the use of e-portfolio systems:

As assessment tools to document progress and the gaining of competencies (thus utilising a
positivist paradigm)
1
June2007/MHW

As reflective tools to encourage critical thinking and deeper learning (a constructivist
paradigm)

As showcases of abilities and achievements (a product for marketing of the student’s
suitability for employment)
The philosophical conflicts in these positions are clear (see also Acker, 2005). Students may need
strong encouragement to use their e-portfolio as a useful reflective tool if they see it as only a
repository for marks or formative assessment. If e-portfolios are carefully constructed so that
students can measure themselves and reflect on their progress against specified learning outcomes,
they are more likely to feel strong ownership in both the process and the product.
Background
The common understanding of what an e-portfolio consists of is summarised by Lorenzo and
Ittelson (2005):
“…a digitized collection of artifacts, including demonstrations, resources, and
accomplishments that represent an individual, group, community, organization, or
institution. This collection can be comprised of text-based, graphic, or multimedia elements
archived on a Web site or on other electronic media such as a CD-ROM or DVD” (p2).
However, this discussion has been taken further by Gibson & Barrett (2003) in breaking the
approach to planning into a generic tools approach versus a customised system. These approaches
are discussed further under ‘Questions to be considered’.
Student artefacts are collected into the portfolio application and usually have the ability to be
eventually showcased as a webpage, or on a CD or DVD. Lorenzo and Ittelson (date) also discuss
the specific use of e-portfolios in higher education, claiming that they help develop critical thinking
(by encouraging reflexivity) and both writing and multi-media skills. However, these claims are of
course dependent on the way that the e-portfolio application is set up by the institution. The last
claim, particularly, is not entirely borne out by the increasing use of e-portfolios that are part of an
LMS such as Blackboard or WebCT. These e-portfolio products do not require, or indeed even
allow, students to develop serious multi-media skills.
The use of an e-portfolio as a reflective tool has its theoretical roots in ideas such as Biggs’ (2003)
notion of ‘constructive alignment’. This constructivist theory moves beyond criterion-referenced
assessment to the notion that everything in a curriculum, including the assessment task(s) and the
teaching methods, should be aligned with the intended learning outcomes. In an e-portfolio this can
be visually demonstrated by means of matrices and tables that show the student exactly where each
quiz, clinical skill, piece of written work or oral presentation fits into the skills base or conceptual
framework that the unit, module or course is intended to develop. Students can then reflect on how
s/he is meeting, exceeding or failing to meet these standards of competencies, and mentor(s) can
give feedback.
Barrett draws a distinction between “the portfolio as process (collection, selection, reflection,
direction, presentation)” and the presentation and display aspect of the portfolio application, what
2
June2007/MHW
she calls “the portfolio as product (the notebook, the website, the CD-ROM or the DVD and the
technological tools used to create the portfolio-as-product)”. (2004, n.p.) In practice these two
aspects are often conflated, but students may require training to distill the aspects of their ‘e-dentity’
(see Ittelson, 2001) that they want to present for different audiences, such as peers, tutors, assessors,
accreditation or professional bodies, potential employers or even the students themselves in a
reflective process.
Questions
The questions raised by a plan to introduce e-portfolios university-wide are closely inter-related
which may make it difficult to untangle the implications of some answers from other answers. Key
questions that should be considered are:
1
What is the lifecycle of the e-portfolio space?
Will it be made available to students after they have left the institution (as the basis for
construction of a CV and/or PDP), and if so for how long and under what circumstances?
What are the costs of this availability?
If the e-portfolio is to be used as a presentation tool, transferability of data becomes an issue if the
student will not have access to the presentation they have created on the institution’s servers at some
time in the future. The collection needs to be able to be exported as a webpage or database that can
be imported and presented in other software outside the e-portfolio application. It can be taken away
from the institution on a CD or DVD, but needs to be able to be updated. This is not possible with
some commercially available systems,
2
Who gets access to an e-portfolio?
Is the material owned by the students or by the institution?
Should there be areas that are completely private to the student?
Who owns the completed e-portfolio? (This clearly influences the answers to the questions in
1 above)
This second group of questions have particular significance if the e-portfolio is to be used for
assessment (when staff need at least some level of access), but less if it is to be used by students for
only presentation of their achievements (when it is clear that it is the student should decide what
artefacts are included and who should have access at what level).
The amount of server space required by completed e-portfolios can be enormous, especially if they
are to be stored over several years and the setting up of servers with the database software is another
technical issue to be considered. These issues are not discussed in the literature. The ready
availability of server space in institutions may account for the lack of literature, but it is something
that needs to be discussed with the university community early in the process.
3
June2007/MHW
Uses of e-portfolios
In this project a number of e-portfolio sites were identified. However, access to most of them for
assessment and evaluation was impossible, as they are not available outside the institution. Where
possible, information about their use was included in this report, using material published on the
institution’s website. There were a small number which are either showcasing their students’
achievements with publicly-available portfolios or making a guided tour available; links to these are
provided in the table in Appendix 1. In a very few cases (The Faculty of Medicine at Newcastle in
the UK and the Open Source Portfolio (OSP)) a live site was available for testing; again, links to
these are in Appendix 1. However, the links to the testing site for the OSP were broken so no
assessment of this was possible.
In Australia some universities are using e-portfolios: Wollongong (WebCT/Blackboard), Melbourne
(Blackboard) and QUT. UNE is also using an e-portfolio system (probably the WebCT one), in a
very positivist way - it is described on the website as "a web-based records management system",
and is tied to seven graduate attributes. A reflective journal can also be submitted to be considered
for a university-wide achievement award. Most importantly for the purposes of this project, the
medical faculty at UNSW has created a comprehensive and complex e-portfolio system called
EMed, which is it has used successfully for several years. We attended a demonstration of this
system, which is impressive. Appendix 4 is a table of the matrix of capabilities that are assessed by
staff and reflected on by students in the EMed system. (Note, however, that UNSW does have not
have graduate entry, so the competencies and concepts in its curriculum may not be relevant to the
curriculum used in the Faculty of Medicine at University of Sydney.)
Assessment using e-portfolios
There are many ways that e-portfolios can be used for both formative and summative assessment.
Lorenzo & Ittelson (2005c) list the following:

to assess students against specified learning objectives using a rubric to assess against a
matrix of performance criteria (not a showcase – internal use)

to help student analyse patterns in their own learning (formative)

to measure against state-based standards

as a collection of “digital artefacts” + reflective essay, all of which is given feedback by
faculty (Johns Hopkins) – used for university’s review of its own programs

as part of a learning plan with analysis of evidence and outcomes (different to the first as
students set own outcomes and decide on the evidence)
One important use of e-portfolios that Lorenzo & Ittelson don’t mention in detail (although it could
be considered as a subset of their first point) is as a facility to give both students on work placements
and their supervisors a place to journal and give feedback on skill acquisition. The use of eportfolios in this way (ie to assess as well as catalogue skills acquisition) is more often required in
practice-based disciplines.
4
June2007/MHW
Reliability in relation to high stakes assessment is an issue and needs to be considered; in particular
the numbers of assessors needed, staff development needs for assessment and issues relating to
pass/fail or grading criteria.
The Australian Information and Communications Technology in Education Committee (AICTEC)
maintains The Technical Standards website, “a gateway to standards, protocols and specifications
relevant to learning, education and training”. Under their auspices, the Education Network Australia
(edna), a joint initiative of the state and territory governments and the federal government, has
collected standards created for e-portfolios around the world. This can be seen at
http://standards.edna.edu.au/standards/go/pid/226
Value and costs of e-portfolio systems
Considerations in the choice and tailoring of e-portfolio systems:

value-add to student learning

acceptability to students and staff

infrastructure costs: integration, sustainability (cost-effectiveness)

maintenance and support costs

Ease of use, including ability to transfer grades from an LMS into the e-portfolio system

Choice of tools
The range of student artefacts that could be housed in an e-portfolio system is substantial. The
following indicates the ranges of artefact:

Actual marks/grades

Detailed tabulation of practical training/clinical skills etc against a matrix

Reflexive/reflective work (eg blogs, comments on assessments, responses to peer mentor, or
faculty reviews)

Presentation of particular achievements, eg graphic designs, artwork, creative writing

Video/audio of student-patient interactions with reflective commentary

Peer reviews of joint projects

Faculty feedback on any of the above

Student claims of prior learning, skills gained outside/prior to enrolment in the course,
voluntary activities etc
5
June2007/MHW
Once an institution has decided to acquire an e-portfolio system, generally speaking there are two
options: you can buy a licence for an existing system, or you can use Open Source software, which
is free but basic and will need customising. The disadvantage of the latter solution is the
maintenance model costs which can not be managed by annual licence costs.
Licensed options
Licensed options include tools already integrated with learning management systems (which have
little software set up costs as it is already embedded), or third party products which can be integrated
through Powerlinks or Building Blocks. Advantages are the ease of integration with existing tools
making use of the system easier for non-specialist user-teachers, and a maintenance model which is
covered by annual licence costs. Examples are the Blackboard eportfolio and iWebfolio, which are
reviewed in Appendix 1.
Open Source options
Although there are no software purchase costs, set up costs include an operating system installed on
a server, integration costs and customisation costs. Ongoing costs involve resolving how to address
maintenance and upgrading.
Case studies of institutions who have built their portfolios using OSP can be seen at
http://kml.carnegiefoundation.org/OSP/ The costs of doing this are unknown.
It is also being used at Massey University in New Zealand: http://www-ist.massey.ac.nz/eportfolios/
Reviews of the systems that have been built from OSP at Portland State and Indiana University have
been included in the review in Appendix 1.
Summary
There are many decisions that need to be taken before e-portfolios are implemented, including;

the learning uses they are to be put to, and forms of assessment that will be incorporated

ownership of the artefacts and final product,

how the data will be managed and the user-support required

setup, maintenance and upgrade costs (especially costs of maintaining space for students
over the life of their studies and for some time after graduation).
There is no doubt that e-portfolios are becoming mainstream in higher education systems
worldwide. They have particular application in integrated programs, they have more appeal and a
clearer pedagogical application when a clear, detailed matrix of skills, competencies or conceptual
frameworks is available throughout a program of study. Linking the e-portfolio to generalised
Graduate Attributes is less useful for student learning than being able to connect to detailed
Learning Outcomes. Johns Hopkins built an e-portfolio system for their Master of Arts in Teaching
program five years ago, basing it on an earlier paper portfolio. (This system is now a commercial
product and is reviewed in Appendix 1.) The department director is quoted as saying that Digital
6
June2007/MHW
Portfolios “enhance our ability to look at our own program” (J. Nunn, quoted in Lorenzo & Ittelson
2005b). This may an unintended benefit of installing an e-portfolio system, that, like an eLearning
system, it may reveal and make transparent parts of the curriculum and the student experience that
have previously been hidden from view.
7
June2007/MHW
References
Acker, S. (2005) Overcoming Obstacles to Authentic e-portfolio Assessment. Campus Technology,
14 March 2005. Accessed at http://campustechnology.com/articles/40147/ on 18.06.2007
Barrett, H. (2004) Selecting e-portfolio software. In E-portfolios for Learning, June 01, 2004.
Accessed at http://electronicportfolios.com/blog/2004/06/selecting-e-portfolio-software.html
on 18.06.2007
Biggs, J. (2003) Aligning teaching for constructive learning. Discussion Paper from The Higher
Education Academy, UK. Accessed at
http://www.elearningsource.info/learningtheory/Biggs.pdf on 18.06.2007
Gibson, D. & Barrett, H. (2003) Directions in electronic portfolio development. Contemporary
Issues in Technology and Teacher Education, [Online serial], 2(4). Accessed at
http://www.citejournal.org/vol2/iss4/general/article3.cfm on 18.06.2007
Lorenzo, G. and Ittelson, J. (2005a) An overview of e-portfolios. ELI Paper 1: Educause Learning
Initiative, July 2005, Educause. Accessed at
http://connect.educause.edu/library/abstract/AnOverviewofE-portfol/39335 on 18.06.2007
Lorenzo, G. and Ittelson, J. (2005b) An overview of institutional portfolios. ELI Paper 2: Educause
Learning Initiative, September 2005, Educause. Accessed at
http://connect.educause.edu/library/abstract/AnOverviewofInstitut/39336on 18.06.2007
Lorenzo, G. and Ittelson, J. (2005c) Demonstrating and assessing student learning with e-portfolios.
ELI Paper 3: Educause Learning Initiative, October 2005, Educause. Accessed at
http://connect.educause.edu/library/abstract/DemonstratingandAsse/39337 on 18.06.2007
Ittelson, J. (2001) Building an e-dentity for each student. EDUCAUSE Quarterly, 24, 4, 2001.
Ward, R. (2006) Editorial. Centre for Recording Achievement Newsletter, December 2006.
Accessed at www.recordingachievement.org/pdpuk/newsletter/PDPUK-Issue9-Dec2006.pdf
on 18.06.2007
Webpages with background and other useful information
http://electronicportfolios.org Helen Barrett’s site, especially
http://www.electronicportfolios.org/web20portfolios.html where e-portfolios are
demonstrated/
http://connect.educause.edu/library/abstract/Planningforelectroni/42479 Helen Barrett’s presentation
on the practical implications of planning for e-portfolios
8
June2007/MHW
Appendix 1: E-portfolios
Newcastle (UK): http://www.e-portfolios.ac.uk/e-portfolio (Test site available - login details on request)
The University of Newcastle Medical School has developed an e-portfolio site that is especially suited to the specific assessment
requirements of clinical skills for medical students.
Type of
system
Generic e-portfolio site - has been developed at Newcastle and can be configured to suit. Creation
date unknown but nothing added to site since 2004
Aim and
users
“…to satisfy both requirements for PDP in the wider HE sector and increasing demands within
Medicine for reflective clinical practice and to develop life-long learners with skills and experience
appropriate for appraisal, assessment and on-going professional revalidation.”
Used by medical and dental students at Newcastle (UK) and possibly another university
Content
9
June2007/MHW
Assessment
The PDP and reflective learning diary are organized around specific assessable student outcomes.
These are grouped as:
What the doctor is able to do
Clinical skills
Practical procedures
Patient investigation
Patient management
Health promotion and disease prevention
Communication
Data and information handling skills
How the doctor approaches practice
Understanding of basic and clinical sciences and underlying principles
Appropriate attitudes, ethical understanding and legal responsibilities
Appropriate decision making, clinical reasoning and judgement
The doctor as a professional
Personal development
Professional development
Ease of use
The student enters the details of each clinical skill.
The system is complex, but comprehensive record of everything the student has done.
Ability to cross-reference data: eg under communication could link a skill to a
conference presentation
Evaluation
Documents of several evaluation presentations at http://www.e-portfolios.ac.uk/FDTL4?pid=49
Costs
Unknown
Maintenance
Model
Unknown
10
June2007/MHW
Emed – UNSW Department of Medical Education
Contact Chris Hughes c.hughes@unsw.edu.au
Type of
system
Simple database system built in Lotus Notes and refined over years. They are intending to move the
content to an open source e-portfolio application soon.
Aim and
users
To manage all content of undergrad med program at UNSW
Content
Everything in the undergraduate degree is in this system except lecture notes. (These are in WebCT
Vista and linked at appropriate places.)

All timetables, syllabuses, assessment items - including quizzes, essays, scenario-based
problems, clinical skills, group projects (including peer reviews and response to same) and
marking sheets are in this integrated application.

All data accumulates for six years of course.

All achievements are tabulated against five grad outcomes in a huge matrix arrangement.
Assessment
Students are measured against the five graduate outcomes on four levels (criteria referenced). Almost
no failing allowed – three chances to redo items then out of course. Every eight weeks students write a
reflective essay on progress or lack of progress against the outcomes for that period, which gives
background to assessment of marks for eight-week block. Assessor uses this essay as well as marks
when assessing progress.Portfolio is blind reviewed by faculty every 2 years
Ease of use
Extremely simple – menu-driven systems.
Evaluation
unknown
Costs
Unknown
Maintenance
model
Unknown
11
June2007/MHW
PebblePad (Pebble Learning)
This product is being used by Wolverhampton University (including the medical school) http://www.pebblelearning.co.uk/
This tool has a lot of different tools, including marks storage, blogs, and presentation tools. Mentors can have access and publishing
can be controlled in a number of ways.
Type of
system
Proprietary product
Aim and
users
“PebblePad is being used by students to collate work for assessment; to enhance personal
development planning; to record progress on professional courses; and for supporting peer-group
networks. Teachers are using PebblePad for sharing information with their students; for providing
feedback on progress; to support placement students; for project work; for CPD and even for
appraisal.”
Is customisable. Tour is available, including detailed tours for each item.
Content
Assets (files, claims etc); Notes and Reviews; Comments; Sharing; Spell Checker; Weblog;
Webfolio (containing whatever you want)
Assessment
Can be used for assessment at the level required
Ease of use
Seems very easy
Evaluation
unknown
Costs
Unknown
Maintenance
model
Unknown
12
June2007/MHW
UMinnesota
University of Minnesota has a proprietary product created by http://avenet.net A virtual tour is available at the site. These portfolios
are available to any resident of Minnesota to create a portfolio and publish a CV from it. Tools include ways to record a broad range
of life experiences, including apprenticeships and previous employment, as well as different kinds of educational milestones and
achievements
Type of
system
Proprietary product
Aim and
users
“An institutional electronic portfolio is an efficient tool to present an electronic snapshot on the
academic and operational happenings of an institution. It is also a vehicle to display information,
documentation, and resources for program, discipline, or institutional accreditation purposes.”
Completely customisable
Content






Classes and courses
Assessments
Learning Projects
Internships, apprenticeships and practicum
Activities in school such as sports, music, etc.
* Volunteer involvement and community service
Assessment
Several different types available
Ease of use
Simple to use
Exports xml
Evaluation
unknown
Costs
unknown
Maintenance
Model
unknown
13
June2007/MHW
Blackboard
Type of
system
Proprietary product
Aim and
users
Institutional plugin for Blackboard CMS system (can be used by students in the institution who are
not using Blackboard)
Content
Student created – can import material (files, quizzes, discussions) from Blackboard UoS sites, create
new files or import from or link to anywhere.
Content did not seem to be able to be exported at the completion of studies for further editing and
display.
Assessment
Set up in Blackboard then exported. Tool is primarily intended for students to store and showcase
achievements
Ease of use
Very easy, but may not be possible to tailor it to use with a complex matrix of competencies
Evaluation
http://www.ascilite.org.au/ajet/ajet23/lambert.html
Costs
Approx US$60K/year + costs of disk space
Maintenance
model
Integrated with LMS maintenance model
Portland State Uni
Portland students all have an e-portfolio, built around the four goals of university studies - Inquiry and Critical Thinking,
Communication, The Diversity of Human Experience, Ethics and Social Responsibility - in a matrix of the four years of the degree
structure.
Type of
system
Built in OSP, integrated into Sakai LMS (also Open Source)
14
June2007/MHW
Aim and
users
All students enrolled at the institution use this system. Details in four rubrics documents available at
http://www.pdx.edu/unst/goals.html
Content
The artefacts are student assignments imported from the LMS, plus student reflections on the
assessment given.
Assessment
No details available
Ease of use
No details available
Evaluation
http://www.cfkeep.org/html/snapshot.php?id=763916170936
Costs
unknown
Maintenance
model
unknown
Indiana University- Purdue University Indianapolis
Type of
system
Built in OSP, integrated into Sakai LMS (also Open Source)
Aim and
users
Aims:

to empower students by enabling them to access all learning resources anywhere, anyplace,
anytime; work smarter and more efficiently; discover and demonstrate logical pathways to
academic success

to enable faculty to partner in student progress and provide rich content with greater ease

to enrich learning experiences through learning across courses and co-curricular activities and
to make document meaningful connections with the community and the workplace
Users:
15
June2007/MHW

students using the system to track, document and reflect upon their learning, and to create
cutomized resumes and applications for future needs;

faculty using the system to monitor student learning, mentor students, and adjust curricula and
pedagogy where warranted;

academic staff gathering data for institutional analysis;

program admissions committees to select which students best meet qualifying criteria.
Content
Based around their principles on undergraduate learning matrix, linked from the evaluation page
below
Assessment
No details available
Ease of use
No details available
Evaluation
http://www.cfkeep.org/html/snapshot.php?id=75189619953921
Costs
unknown
Maintenance
model
unknown
Johns Hopkins University pre-service teaching program
Has used e-portfolios for five years, builiding on an earlier paper portfolio system..
Type of
system
Built by staff at the institution Can be viewed at
http://olms.cte.jhu.edu/olms/output/page.php?id=4904
Aim and
users
Replaces a thesis: “All students in the MAT program are required to create and defend their Digital
Portfolio as an exit requirement. This culminating activity requires students to assemble a set of
digital artifacts and reflections that demonstrate competencies related to the Interstate New Teacher
Assessment and Support Consortium (INTASC) principles. Additionally, students align digital
16
June2007/MHW
artifacts and reflections to other relevant standards (for example, technology standards) as well as
content areas such as math, science, or English.”
Content
“The Digital Portfolio infrastructure … includes a set of reviewer tools for note taking as well as for
recording preliminary scores on a 4-point rubric that helps faculty manage the entire process. Other
key features of the Digital Portfolio include a journal tool for recording and storing reflections about
professional experiences; a message center, which is a communications hub where members of the
JHU e-portfolio community can send and receive messages; and a customization feature that allows
MAT program faculty and students to organize local, state, national, and content area standards of
their choice.”
Assessment
“The Digital Portfolio replaces a rigorous master’s thesis process. A review team consisting of a
school-based educator (from where the master’s candidate taught or interned) and a JHU
educator/thesis supervisor provides advice and feedback to the student. Students participate in a
variety of field placements in school settings. Upon successful completion of their coursework, a
teaching internship, praxis exams, and defense of their e-portfolios, MAT students are eligible for
Maryland state certification.
MAT faculty make an integrated effort across their courses to ensure that students are collecting the
appropriate digital artifacts and reflecting on the INTASC principles. Students are expected to ask for
feedback on their artifacts, strengthening their reflective processes and improving the artifacts that
demonstrate their competencies.”
Ease of use
Unknown
Evaluation
Has been well evaluated and is now a commercial product. Tour available at
http://www.prenhall.com/jhuportfolio/tour.html
Although this is a product designed for trainee teachers, with customisation it may be suitable for
clinical medical students
Costs
unknown
Maintenance
model
unknown
17
June2007/MHW
iWebFolio
At the end of the review process, another system was identified. See http://www.nuventive.com/ for further details. This is
a 3rd party product that integrates with proprietory LMSs.
Type of
system
Is a complete system that stands alone, or can be integrated with Blackboard/WebCT. Is compelte but
also highly customisable. Can be hosted by the company on local servers or in the US, or installed at
the institution. Uses an Oracle database. Local representative Martin Halmarick, S1 consulting,
98873980
Aim and
users
“iWebfolio is an advanced electronic portfolio management system that helps individuals organize
and archive work materials – ranging from text documents and presentations to graphics files, sound
clips, video footage, and just about any other document or media format imaginable. Designed to help
all individuals, whether they are students, faculty, staff or professionals, prepare, manage, reflect,
share and present the results of their academic career, co-curricular, personal and professional
experiences, iWebfolio puts the individual at the center of the solution, while helping organizations
that need to acquire and present evidence of continuous improvement toward institutionally defined
learning and performance outcomes.”
Possibility of external hosting for students once they have left the institution (for a price – currently
$45US per annum).
Content
Comprehensive collection of tools. Fully compatible with Blackboard/webCT.
Students who have graduated can download final eportfolio to save and continue to edit in the future
as html pages.
Assessment
Very flexible provision of tools. Can be used for numeric or more qualitative measures, with options
for self-reflection, reviewer feedback and self-evaluation. Rubrics can be created for complex task or
competency assessment.
Ease of use
Appears straightforward; has some Web2.0 capabilities but also uses Java script in the same manner
18
June2007/MHW
as Blackboard to create files online. Can use word files, cleaning them up for better html presentation.
Evaluation
Is a well-used commercial product in the US. Has also been used at Massey University in NZ for preservice teachers. Also at UWS for staff portfolios
Costs
Unknown
Maintenance
model
Can be hosted externally, or consultancy available to set it up within the institution.
19
June2007/MHW
Appendix 2: summary of e-portfolio tools available in various systems
Actual marks/grades
Coursework
Assessments
Presentations given
Projects undertaken
Detailed tabulation of practical training/clinical skills etc against a matrix
Clinical/worksite training
Internships
Practicum
Reflexive/reflective work
Blogs
Comments on assessments
Responses to peer mentor or faculty reviews
Presentation of particular achievements
Projects undertaken
Publications
Work samples (eg artwork, design, writing, photography)
Work exhibited
Peer reviews of joint projects
Review tool
20
June2007/MHW
Faculty feedback on any of the above
Mentor
Student claims of prior learning, skills gained outside/prior to enrolment in the course, voluntary activities etc
Education to date
Presentations given
Other training
Honours and awards
Hobbies
Volunteer activities
Apprenticeship
Licences and certifications
Employment history
Personal information
References
Career objectives
Contact information
21
June2007/MHW
Appendix 3 - Call for Papers ePortfolio Conference 2007
Maastricht 17-19 October 2007
http://events.eife-l.org/ep2007/
The main theme of the 5
th
International ePortfolio conference is "Employability and Lifelong Learning in the Knowledge
Society." This year the conference will be co-organised by EIfEL in partnership with the TENCompetence project, SURF,
CWI, Kennisnet, Kenteq, the City of Maastricht and the Province of Limburg.
We invite the submission of papers that report original academic or industrial research in the areas of lifelong learning,
employability and the ePortfolio. All academic papers will be peer-reviewed and published in the conference proceedings.
Best papers will be selected to make an extended version to be published in a special issue of a scientific journal.
Besides researchers who contribute academic papers, we will also invite representatives from industry, public
employment services, schools and universities to jointly discuss and explore some of the major challenges we face today
related to employability, lifelong learning and the ePortfolio.
The challenges that will be discussed are:
1. Methods, theories and practice to ensure lifelong employability and social inclusion
2. Methods, theories and practice to cope with changing employment demands in society
3. Methods, technologies and standards for ePortfolios and new forms of assessment
4. Methods, technologies and standards related to (personal) competence development/lifelong learning
5. Supporting the repositioning of traditional organisations in the knowledge society (eg, role of libraries)
6. Creating online networks of learners and professionals in regions and professional sectors
7. Transforming education and training systems to meet the needs of the knowledge society
8. Improving massively the level of education and mastery of literacy and key skills
9. Ensuring the privacy and data protection related to ePortfolio
10. Implementing ePortfolio and related learning technologies effectively
More details on these challenges are available at the conference website: http://events.eife-l.org/ep2007/call/challenges
Conference Location
The venue, MECC (Maastricht Exhibition Conference Centre, http://www.mecc.nl), is located within the city, which is
easily accessible by train (Thalys), plane (Maastricht-Aachen Airport, Düsseldorf, Brussels, Köln or Eindhoven) and car.
Programme Committee
Conference Chair: Rob Koper, Open University of the Netherlands
22
June2007/MHW
Appendix 4 (File attached): Graduate capabilities matrix from the EMed portfolio, UNSW
23