FACULTY DEVELOPMENT CHALLENGES AND STRATEGIES FOR EMBRACING

E-PORTFOLIOS IN HIGHER EDUCATION: A LITERATURE REVIEW

Michele A. Houston*, Lin Lin, Ed.D.**

Abstract

Universities and colleges are adopting e-portfolios for a multitude of reasons. In this paper, the authors

considered the benefits and challenges of adopting e-portfolios as a teaching and assessment tool. The

authors conclude that with institutional support, faculty participation and student involvement, the

integration of e-portfolios can help improve student learning and assessments, and also facilitate faculty

development and institutional accreditation processes.

Key Works

COMPUTER SUPPORTED COLLABORATIVE LEARNING, COLLABORATIVE WORK,

INSTRUCTIONAL TECHNOLOGIES, E-ASSESSMENT

1. Introduction

E-Portfolios first appeared in universities and colleges in the 1990s and have now been accepted by at

least half of all universities and colleges in the United States (Clark, 2009). In most of these institutions

only a few programs and courses have adopted e-portfolio use (Demski, 2012). In general, an e-portfolio

offers a resume portfolio-building experience and serves as a reflection and critical thinking tool for

millennial students who are used to web-based technologies. When e-portfolios are implemented in an

institutional curriculum, students are provided with an online space where they can create and showcase

*Faculty of Journalism, Southern Methodist University, USA: (mhouston@smu.edu) ** Faculty of Department of Learning Technologies, University of North Texas, USA: (lin.lin@unt.edu)

 

  

2 

their work in steps. They can start with a working portfolio and generate artifacts that only they can see,

then proceed to a developmental portfolio that they share with faculty, and finally, create a showcase

portfolio that they share with the world when they are ready (Gathercoal et al., 2002). Reese and Levy

(2009) assert: “Although the simple act of documenting personal or group work fills an important

archival need, the full impact of e-portfolios is realized when the author(s) and others reflect on the

content” (p. 2). Over the past 30 years researchers have argued that humans learn best via active,

experiential learning (Demski, 2012). Experiential learning has also been called authentic and student-

centric learning. Lombardi argued that authentic learning "focuses on real-world, complex problems and

their solutions, using role-playing exercises, problem-based activities, case studies and participation in

virtual communities of practice" (as cited in Reese & Levy, 2009, p. 3). E-portfolios offer a tool that

encompasses these learning theories.

However, before students can do all of the above, educators need to know how to adopt

experiential teaching pedagogies, learn to use an e-portfolio system, and create digital artifacts for e-

portfolios. Many educators have no experience using e-portfolios, and do not know how to integrate an

e-portfolio into curricula as a resume portfolio or as a reflection and critical thinking tool for students.

Lack of personal knowledge about a technology is problematic in the classroom, because talented

teachers create practical and engaging lessons by drawing on experience (Lankshear, Snyder, & Green,

2000). When a teacher has not used a technology in his or her personal or professional life, he or she

faces technical and pedagogical challenges when implementing it in the classroom.

Universities and colleges face a myriad of challenges when adopting an e-portfolio-based

curriculum. Early e-portfolio adopters and advocates agree that faculty professional development is key

to successfully implementing e-portfolios as a teaching tool. Reese and Levy (2009) declare that "no

single group can do it alone … isolated groups may not realize…benefits that come from an enterprise-

wide adoption" (pgs. 7-8). According to Barrett (2005), “there are several dimensions of this process,

 

  

3 

based on the pedagogical purpose for developing the portfolios, the technological tools chosen to

construct and store them, and the dispositions or attitudes toward change of the teachers or faculty” (p.

1). Barrett recognized that "electronic portfolios cannot be created in isolation from other technology

integration across the curriculum," (p. 1) and that students and faculty members must know how to

develop digital content to populate e-portfolios (Barrett, 2005). Barrett and other experts all emphasized

that using e-portfolios requires a pedagogical shift toward student-centered teaching. In other words,

teachers need training in order to become skilled with digital content creation and the specific e-

portfolio system chosen by their institution. More importantly, they need intense professional

development in order to master the major shift in teaching style that accompanies e-portfolio adoption.

For a decade, research on e-portfolios has focused on the benefits and challenges facing students

using e-portfolios rather than issues confronting faculty members seeking to enhance teaching and

learning via e-portfolio use (Gathercoal et al., 2002, p. 30). Fortunately for late adopters, best practices

for implementing a successful transition to e-portfolio use abound. Batson argued: “Our whole culture

has gone digital, knowledge has changed entirely – yes, it's a big change, but we actually know the way

to go. We have evidence in the practices gathered together that gives us a pathway forward” (Demski, p.

2012, p. 31). This paper will focus on the information, professional development, and support that

faculty members need in order to embrace e-portfolios in their curricula. A successful segue to e-

portfolio use will require not only extensive technological training, but also an agreement among faculty

members to embrace Web 2.0 interactive tools that completely change the culture of a classroom.

2. E­portfolio Benefits 

2.1. Time, Effort and Pay-off 

To start, faculty members need assurance that e-portfolios are worth the effort, and that the technology is

a mature technology that won't go out of fashion before they see a pay-off. Jafari (2004) stated "e-

 

  

4 

portfolio systems are still in the refinement stage of inventing a new, sticky software environment," but

he was "convinced that e-portfolio systems will play a significant role in higher education" (p. 1). Clark

(2009) links exponential growth of e-portfolio use during the decade to "sweeping economic,

demographic, political, and technological changes, [that make] the e-portfolio an increasingly salient

feature of the changing educational landscape" (p. 18). Although no survey has determined an exact

percentage of universities and colleges using e-portfolios, Clark (2009) counted 894 members of The E-

Portfolio Consortium representing close to 60 percent of United States higher education institutions.

"According to a 2008 study by the Campus Computing Project, just over 50 percent of public and

private universities and public four-year colleges in the U.S. now offer some form of an e-portfolio to

their students" (p. 1). Virginia Tech, Clemson University and LaGuardia Community College have

committed themselves to moving toward 100 percent e-portfolio courses (Demski, 2012). According to

Batson (2002), MIT had fully embraced e-portfolios by 2002. In addition, The Minnesota State Colleges

and Universities system, and the University of Minnesota system, as well as schools of education across

the country were transitioning to e-portfolios.

Waters (2009) wrote: “If you want to get a sense of the maturity of a given technology, a good

place to start is the hype cycle… [and the] initial spike of enthusiasm for a new technology that tends to

peak and then plunge when unrealistic expectations go unmet – but then rises again, much more

gradually, as the technology stabilizes and finds its market niche” (p. 1). As of November 2009,

Gartner's research director defined organizational e-portfolios, or e-portfolios used as a formal

assessment tool with students, as a mature technology. Gartner's analysts contend that many vendors

create e-portfolio tools for university application, and that all of these products offer users the ability to

upload, store and showcase almost any type of text or multimedia file. Some e-portfolio systems

integrate with learning management systems, like Blackboard, already used at most universities and

colleges. And most e-portfolio systems are hosted online, allowing users to access them via common

 

  

5 

web browsers. The tools and knowledge about how to successfully embrace student e-portfolios as

resume portfolios, assessment tools, and critical reflections tools not only exist, but also have reached a

mature stage of development after many years of testing and use. Batson (2011) claims e-portfolios

"have dramatically improved in functionality and user interface" since 2007, and that they have shifted

from assessing student progress toward structures that promote learning and assessment with life-long

support that enables students to "build a professional digital identity" (Batson, 2011, p. 1).

According to Waters' interviews with researchers at Gartner, the current quest of e-portfolio

innovators is to devise a system that allows e-portfolios to follow users throughout their educational and

professional life. E-portfolio advocates are pushing for the "day where an individual’s e-portfolio

becomes the credit bureau for his or her academic and professional achievements. The current trends

bode well for making this a reality” (Ittelson, 2008, p. 35). E-portfolios are becoming an essential tool in

the education landscape. They're not a fad, although they will morph as new technologies and uses are

introduced. The pay-off for e-portfolio adoption extends beyond the benefits for students of authentic,

student-centric, active learning that engages critical thinking and helps students build a resume portfolio.

The benefits extend to employers seeking proof of student skills, access to student materials for

accreditation purposes and even tenure packet organizational benefits.

2.2. Professional Benefits

Foley (2008) remarks that faculty members seeking tenure should use e-portfolios as repositories of

academic and professional achievements in the years leading up to their tenure reviews and that building

an e-portfolio over time makes “creating an appropriate tenure review portfolio [take] very little time"

(Foley, 2008, p. 5). Batson (2002) declares that the most significant benefit of an e-portfolio for faculty

is as a teaching tool that efficiently supports faculty members' need to "manage, review, reflect, and

comment on student work” while also providing the ability to store, categorize and easily access it

 

  

6 

(Batson, 2002, p. 3). This material can be used to "make a case for teaching excellence, an area of

review that has been historically under-documented and not sufficiently objective" (Batson, 2002, p. 3).

We live in the Information Age, and specifically in a time when Web 2.0 tools have helped to

make multimedia communication as important as the printed word. Giving faculty members and

students the "ability to represent learning through integrated media will be essential" (Fischman, 2009,

p. 1). E-portfolios allow students to acquire and showcase digital skills desired by employers, to learn to

critically reflect about how theory and skills taught in a course relate to their lives outside of class, to

connect formal and informal learning across courses and disciplines, and to "flesh out their resumes"

(Batson, 2002, p. 2). E-portfolios offer an accessible and transportable history of a student's progress and

mastery level that may also be helpful for transfer students, graduate school applications, internship

applications and job interviews (Batson, 2002, p. 3). Experts view e-portfolios as such a valuable tool,

because using them “fosters active learning not only in the area of subject content, but also in the use of

technology” (Ouyang & Andrews 2004, p. 2). Most college students today are members of the

Millennial generation raised on multimedia technology, and e-portfolios offer a compelling way to

engage these students in their learning.

E-portfolio use is also beneficial for institutional accreditation. Compiling examples and data on

student and faculty benchmarks for accreditation needs should take much less work since a significant

role of e-portfolios is to organize and demonstrate student experiences, work and growth, and faculty

accomplishments (Foley, 2008). Since 2005, the Council for Higher Education Accreditation (CHEA)

has offered an annual award for Institutional Progress in Student Learning Outcomes meant to publicize

efforts to analyze student-learning outcomes with reliable metrics. "Selection is based on four criteria:

articulation and evidence of outcomes, success with regard to outcomes, informing the public about

outcomes, and using outcomes for institutional improvements" (Lambert, DePaepe, Lambert, and

Anderson, 2007, p. 77). E-Portfolios offer a transparent method for standards and material that will be

 

  

7 

assessed by those standards to be stored, searched, and viewed. As stated by Lambert, Lambert,

DePaepe and Anderson (2007): “…the results of the assessment can be stored in a database for

aggregate analyses and interpretations. Using aggregated data that are standards-based can help

academic departments judge how well their programs are preparing students" (p. 77). Lambert, Lambert,

DePaepe and Anderson (2007) assert that transparency of evaluation methods helps to ensure that

students comprehend expected outcomes.

Clark (2009) details forces accelerating e-portfolio growth. She discusses the pedagogical shift to

a more "student-centered, active learning" environment, the ease of Web 2.0 multimedia self-publication

propelling interest from students in "creating rich digital self-portraits," an increasing pressure for

accountability in the form of "accessible and comparable measures of student learning," and a reaction

to the increasing "fluidity in employment and education" (pgs. 18-19). Clark (2009) proposes “growth of

e-portfolio use is directly related to its elasticity, to the diversity of purposes for which it can be used,

including enriched learning and improved career development, transfer, and assessment. In practice,

colleges often combine a number of purposes for their e-portfolio projects, an integrative approach that

allows for rich results” (p. 19). This list of benefits sounds like a panacea for many issues facing faculty

members, administrators and students in higher education. However, the list of challenges that must be

met before an institution will reap benefits is quite daunting. "The key to success is how well the campus

population is prepared for using this new tool. It's not a simple add-on to existing courses" (Batson,

2002, p. 4).

To obtain benefits from this multi-faceted new tool, many challenges must be overcome. There

are two that relate most directly to faculty needs. An academic division or institution must craft a

curriculum that builds toward mastery level skills, with each class building upon work completed in

prerequisite classes. And the institution must deliver generous resources to students and faculty as they

learn best practices for e-portfolio use, including channels for faculty mentoring that empower student

 

  

8 

growth. According to Batson (2002), “Freeing student [and faculty] work from paper and making it

organized, searchable, and transportable opens enormous possibilities for re-thinking whole curricula:

the evaluation of faculty, assessment of programs, certification of student work, how accreditation

works. In short, e-Portfolios might be the biggest thing in technology innovation on campus. Electronic

portfolios have a greater potential to alter higher education at its very core than any other technology

application we've known thus far” (p. 1).

2.3. Pedagogical Benefits

It is incredibly important to remember "e-portfolios are not primarily about technology but a

commitment to a set of principles about education" (Fischman, 2009, p.1). As mentioned by numerous

e-portfolio experts, faculty members must understand not just how to utilize e-portfolios, but also how to

adapt teaching methods to the student-centered teaching and mentoring required by e-portfolios. To

begin this transformation, "Faculty must vacate the idea that portfolios are something done to students

and embrace the notion that the [e-portfolio] process is something done with and for students"

(Gathercoal et al., 2002, p. 36). For those faculty members who have yet to be convinced that they

should embrace this call to change, Chris Dede (2010) provides an analogy: “If you were going to see a

doctor and the doctor said, 'I've been really busy since I got out of medical school, and so I'm going to

treat you with the techniques I learned back then,' you'd be rightly incensed…Yet there are a lot of

faculty who say with a straight face, 'I don't need to change my teaching,' as if nothing has been learned

about teaching since they had been prepared to do it—if they've ever been prepared to (as cited in

Young, p. 1).

At a conference sponsored by some of the most respected leaders in e-portfolio teaching methods,

experts pointed out important characteristics and forces behind e-portfolio successes (Barrett et. al,

2008). For instance, Richardson pointed out “when students are able to self-assess, they see how they’ve

grown over time. And that helps them to reflect and make better choices in terms of career, in terms of

 

  

9 

transfer schools. On an institutional side, it helps us look at how well we instruct the students. If a

student’s portfolio hasn’t strengthened from the time they’ve entered to the time they’re ready to

graduate, there’s disconnect. We can look at how well we’re doing, and then hopefully redirect our

curriculum to address any gaps” (p. 3). Batson promoted the idea of starting the learning process with

student competencies rather than student deficiencies. Cambridge clarified that e-portfolio was "not a

technology," but rather a range of technologies that support "collecting evidence of learning, organizing

it, reflecting on it, receiving feedback, and planning for future learning and personal development"

(Barrett et. al, 2008, p. 6). Clark confirmed that e-portfolios were about "learning with and from our

students." (p. 7). Clark discussed how this approach changed teaching entirely. She emphasized that one

cannot rely on old lectures. A teacher must be willing to change what he or she is doing. Batson added

that teachers should no longer say, "This is the syllabus, these are the four walls, and you follow my

path. No. We have to trust the students…. But we can do post-production editing with the students. That

is Web 2.0. That’s our age" (p. 8). Richardson talked about student reflection as key to the successful

use of e-portfolios. He asked students to think about what choices they made to get them to this point in

life and what decisions might help them fulfill future goals.

Yancy, Cambridge, and Cambridge (2009) also see student reflections as an essential tool of e-

portfolios. Through analyzing their own reflections and the feedback of others, students become more

knowledgeable about the progress of their own learning (Yancy, Cambridge, & Cambridge, 2009). The

authors consider e-portfolios an ideal vehicle for formative assessment both informally from students

and their peers, and formally from teachers. They also argue that assessment is essential to the learning

process, because it allows students to "identify how their learning occurs and progresses, and develop

their own abilities as self-assessors" (p. 4). Drury (2006) notes, however, it is not easy for anyone to

critically reflect on his or her work, and that teachers must guide students in how to engage in

meaningful reflection regarding their learning. Once students grasp critical self- reflection, e-portfolio

 

  

10 

reviews promote active learning. Rhodes argues that learning "needs to be demonstrated through

cumulative, progressive work students perform as they move through their educational pathways to

graduation" in both classroom learning and informal learning (Bass, 2009, p. 5). He argues against

standardized testing, and suggests that e-portfolios offer an ideal vehicle for assembling evidence of the

types of critical learning most desired by educators and employers. He says that over twenty years of

research shows that requiring a student to regularly reflect on their work using clear rubrics "helps

students judge their work as an expert would" (Bass, 2009, p. 6).

2.4. Benefits in Learning Assessment

Ittelson (2008) theorizes that students and faculty can intensify and innovate the learning process via

Web 2.0 tools contained within e-portfolios. He stated that “In the world of Flickr, Twitter, LinkedIn,

wikis and blogs, establishing and maintaining your digital identity is daunting. Even more challenging is

establishing and maintaining one’s educational identity. Luckily, e-portfolio tools, systems and

processing are helping individuals establish their formal identities” (p. 32).

Even as standardized testing has become a mantra in The United States, many teachers have begun

serious study of how students learn best. Batson (2009) declares: “We've reached a critical mass, habits

have changed, and as we reach electronic 'saturation' on campus, new norms of work are emerging.

Arising out of this critical mass is a vision of how higher education can benefit, which is with the e-

portfolio" (p. 1). Batson contends that even if every faculty member on a campus adopts e –portfolios,

the initiative won't succeed unless the underlying structure of curriculum has shifted to fit an e-portfolio,

student-centered methodology. Batson repeats the mantra of other e-portfolio experts that the

educational value inherent in an e-portfolio centers on student self-reflection, and he adds that revision

should follow the self-reflection.

 

  

11 

3. Implementation Challenges

Successfully adopting e-portfolios requires overcoming many challenges. These challenges include:

public vs. private student work issues, copyright issues, and the need to teach students to use portfolios

to develop a professional ethos. In addition, many scholars agree that print portfolios of the past were

"teacher driven," but that the technology issues associated with e-portfolios make them "institution

driven" (Jaschik, 2007, p. 1). Administrators and educators alike see e-portfolios as a tool that will

allow students to reflect about class topics, and to review their academic and intellectual growth over

four years as a college student. Chou and Chen (2009) pointed out that teachers must teach students the

concept of and practical skills for carrying out self-reflection, and that if this step is skipped, self-

reflection efforts may be superficial at best. However, little research offers suggestions about how self-

reflection skills or the practical skills necessary for effective use of e-portfolios can be integrated into

the program or curricula of an institution of higher learning.

There are other challenges when it comes to using the e-portfolio as a reflection tool spanning a

student's college years. If an e-portfolio is designed to follow students throughout college, an institution

must commit to maintaining and supporting the software for at least four years. In addition, faculty and

administrators from diverse departments, which often act as independent silos, will have to come to an

agreement regarding how they wish to utilize e-portfolios and about how to integrate curriculum and

pedagogical standards for campus-wide e-portfolio use.

E-portfolios also require regular assessment. This requirement lends itself to two difficult issues.

One, it requires intensive work for faculty members to thoroughly assess e-portfolios for every student.

Two, assessment is subjective. To ensure fair assessments, it is necessary to create a system where

multiple faculty members can review each portfolio. Doing so creates the challenge of doubling or

tripling assessment work for faculty members (Chou & Chen, 2009, p. 3). Finally, there is a vast

 

  

12 

difference in computer skills not only among students, but also among faculty members. This creates

another challenge for professional development.

4. E-portfolio Implementation Recommendations

Research completed by early adopters of e-portfolios provides some answers to the numerous challenges

facing faculty members seeking to embrace e-portfolios. "Successful implementation depends on a set of

critical success factors, and in academic settings lacking them, expectations must be scaled back until

they are adequately addressed" (Gathercoal et al., 2002, p. 29). Barrett (2005) recommends that any

institution seeking to implement e-portfolios should first thoroughly assess faculty concerns and

competencies, understand different adopter personalities, and work with faculty innovators to create

platforms for change. She recommends that an institution or academic division not plan professional

development content for faculty members until this assessment is complete (Barrett, 2005).

Other early adopters also agree with Barrett's argument that assessment of faculty needs should

take priority during an institution's efforts to transition to e-portfolio use. Garthercoal and others (2002)

note a number of issues that must be addressed for an institution to earn full faculty participation. They

boil it down to the fact that faculty members must be convinced of the benefits of e-portfolio use,

understand that successful implementation requires a pedagogical and technological shift in the way in

which faculty communicate within divisions and with students, and believe that the hard work required

to transition to e-portfolios will offer a pay-off large enough to merit extensive effort. They argue that

"the major obstacle to successful implementation of Web-based electronic portfolios is not student

readiness, it is full faculty participation" (Gathercoal et al, 2002, p. 30). "The reality is that most mature

organizations and the individuals they employ resist change;" particularly the transformational

individual and institutional change required to bring the Industrial-Age model of university education

into the interactive Web 2.0 world represented by e-portfolios (Moore, Fowler, & Watson, 2007, p.1).

 

  

13 

Before a person can pull from even the deepest well of motivation to reinvent oneself as a teacher, he or

she must grasp the importance of the call to change. Gathercoal et. al. (2002) stated that faculty

members must understand that they are the core of the e-portfolio process and must wear many hats "as

resource providers, mentors, conveyors of standards, and definers of quality" (p. 30). Faculty members

must also agree to integrate courses into a tight curriculum that builds toward a mastery level, and to a

loosely standard way of delivering "course assignments, student responses to assignments, and mentor

feedback about students’ work" (Gathercoal et al., 2002, p.30).

An e-portfolio based mastery course curriculum changes the traditional role of a faculty member

from a giver of information to that of a mentor guiding a student as he or she actively constructs

"meaning by generating and displaying responses to issues raised in a course or program of study"

(Gathercoal et al., 2002, p. 32). A pedagogical shift of this magnitude requires extensive professional

development and administrative support as a faculty member reconstructs not only course syllabi,

testing, assessment, and presentation methods, but to a certain extent, learns how to teach with new,

student-centered methods. E-portfolio assessment practices require that students present evidence of

knowledge in their portfolios. This means an instructor must guide them through active learning

problems and projects (Demski, 2012). Enabling instructors to successfully embrace the e-portfolio

approach to teaching requires not only in-depth training in e-portfolios, including digital content creation

workshops, and training on e-portfolio software, but also pedagogical training on how a faculty member

might best shift his/her teaching style and materials to fit an e-portfolio driven curriculum. Batson

(2011) reports that rather than supplementing current teaching styles and curriculum with digital e-

portfolio resumes, proponents advocate: “using e-portfolios to develop students’ critical thinking skills,

to create a student-owned space within the institution, to provide a more integrated learning experience,

to make learning more social, and to create a learning record at graduation based on evidence, not just

grades” (p. 2).

 

  

14 

Early adopter research shows that the goal of creating content mastery-driven e-portfolio courses

also requires a tightly integrated program curriculum focused on developing standards so that each

course fits into a logical sequence, building toward student mastery of the program's content. Designing

this type of integration typically requires an extensive time commitment from a division's faculty. At

early adopter institutions, faculty members "participated in an average of 31 hours of professional

development meetings" including curriculum meetings. Schools compensated faculty members for this

time (Gathercoal et al., 2002, p. 36). Barrett and other e-portfolio experts assert that analysis of faculty

member competencies, comfort levels, and support needs is consequential. Research has shown that for

a successful transition to e-portfolio use "different learning styles and the speed with which different

groups accept this new situation must be considered." Some teachers and students do quit programs

during the e-portfolio adoption process (Gathercoal et al., 2002, p. 36).

How much professional development should an institution provide to faculty members? Rasberry

and Mahajan (2008) posited that “teachers cannot — and should not — be expected to increase their

learning, without materials and resources required to do so" (p. 8). Crews, Miller, and Brown (2009)

suggested that campus Centers for Excellence in Teaching offer an effective solution since many faculty

members will need comprehensive guidance and encouragement to adapt to new technologies. They

acknowledged that many faculty members find it frustrating to constantly embrace new technologies and

juggle resulting shifts in workload and expectations. They also noted that lack of training and research

on the use of new technologies as teaching tools hampers faculty adoption of technology. "The

challenge for our education system is to leverage the learning sciences and modern technology [such as

e-portfolios] to create engaging, relevant, and personalized learning experiences for all learners that

mirror students' daily lives and the reality of their futures," says a draft of the National Education

Technology Plan published by the Department of Education in March (as cited in Young, 2010, p. 1).

And once that challenge has been accepted, it takes a long time to convert curriculum to an e-portfolio

 

  

15 

methodology. "In fact, it typically takes two to three years — at minimum — to fully implement a

successful e-portfolio and assessment system in a college" (Ittelson, 2008, p. 34). Many institutions that

have adopted e-portfolios signify that in order to properly implement an e-portfolio assessment and

learning strategy, the institution must deploy a carefully considered plan of incremental steps toward

complete e-portfolio use (Meyer and Latham, 2008, p. 35).

The Carnegie Foundation sponsored an online case study of five universities’ efforts related to

implementing e-portfolios. Drury (2006) examined these studies and pointed out that the top challenge is

the commitment of an institution's administration to support the needs of faculty members as they seek

to embrace e-portfolios. An institution’s top administrators' public endorsement of the use of e-

portfolios “must not only be verbal but also through actions, resource allocation, and funding that

support faculty and instructional technology support staff in their efforts of integration within the

curriculum and technical staff in challenges they face” (p. 4).

Moore and her colleagues (2007) quoted Edgar Schein as saying: "Transformational learning at

an individual, organizational, or community level is difficult and rarely occurs—except by coercion—

unless desired, indeed invited, by the learner(s)" (p.1). Even when learners invite change, follow-

through can get complicated. Schein professed, "Radical re-learning induces anxiety and guilt in most

people," so institutions must provide environments that insulate learners from embarrassment as they

experiment with new technologies and pedagogies. Schein also claimed that it is critical to ensure that

learners accept that what they're being asked to learn is practical, important and within their capabilities.

Along these lines, Moore and her co-authors (2007) note that for the past decade, early adopters

have "attempted practical, though difficult, change interventions aimed at integrating technology into

teaching and learning activities" and that these proponents are now working to spread the changes

they've adopted across their fields and their institutions (p. 1). Shifting the adoption of student-centric,

interactive and technology-based pedagogies from early adopters to mainstream teaching will require

 

  

16 

many elements to come together. Early adopters like Moore and her colleagues at Virginia Polytechnic

Institute and State University (2007) recommend a broad mix of faculty development strategies, but they

emphasize that the change must begin with pedagogy not technology: ‘To best prepare twenty-first-

century learners for the increasingly complex and interconnected global society in which they live and

work, institutions should implement, across all disciplines, pedagogical practices that involve

interactive, inquiry or problem-based, technology-enriched teaching and learning” (p. 2).

5. Conclusion

The quest for excellent teaching compels instructors to continually embrace updated knowledge in their

field, as well as new teaching skills and technologies. Hutchings describes learning to teach as an

"ongoing process" (Young, 2010, p. 4). "The activities involved in creating new technology-assisted

teaching strategies are time-consuming and labor-intensive because of the personal and organizational

re-thinking involved in the effort" (Moore, et al., 2007, p. 2). Ken Robinson and Michael Wesch

envision reinventing higher education in ways that depart radically from the factory-style education,

invented during the Industrial Revolution, which has driven teaching methods for so long (Robinson,

2010; Wesch, 2007). In his video "Web 2.0 The Machine is Us/ing Us," Wesch illustrates how

information has changed from a hard-to-find resource categorized and organized by experts to an

abundant resource created by all of us. Teaching can no longer be about dishing out information (Wesch,

2007).

Ken Robinson asks, "How do we educate our children to take their place in the economies of the

21st century? How do we do that given that we can't anticipate what the economy will look like at the

end of next week" (Robinson, 2010)? Sitting around conference tables in faculty meetings, educators

talk about the necessity of helping students build, among other things, critical thinking skills, higher-

thinking skills, writing skills, presentation skills, and multimedia skills. To do all of that, we must move

 

  

17 

away from traditional teaching methods. Lecturing to passive students who receive information, which

they regurgitate on tests, does not accomplish the above goals, and it does not teach them to filter the

massive amounts of information available at their fingertips, or to create and upload information. In

Wesch's video lecture "A Portal to Media Literacy," he talks about how we live in an "upload world" in

which "ubiquitous networks" with information about everything are everywhere, on desktop and

portable devices. Our job as educators should be to show students how to "navigate and leverage" this

vast online treasure trove, and to help prepare them to be "knowledge ABLE" or able to critique and

create information so that they can participate in the Information Age (Wesch, 2008).

Freitas and Griffiths (2008) discuss the implications for media convergence: “The learner as

producer of content, is to a great extent, one of the major shifts in the process of digitization and

convergent media forms, and is reflected in the shift away from the more traditional and asymmetrical

broadcast models of production by the few for the many” (p. 15). Teaching methodologies need to catch

up to the Information Age and the Web 2.0 revolution in which students can find information at the

touch of a keyboard. Educators need to find ways to teach students to filter vast amounts of available

information, to ask critical questions that will lead them to answers, and to use research to create and

upload information. E-portfolios offer a tool that meshes a wide range of Web 2.0 technologies into a

platform that allows teachers to move away from traditional paradigms of education created during the

Industrial Revolution while maintaining highly sought after student learning outcome metrics.

Curricula that integrate e-portfolios will enhance classroom experiences by increasing faculty-to-

student and student-to-student mentorship, as well as morphing lectures into interactive discussion and

reflection on material, work, and future education. Increased discussion allows instructors to plan class

time around student-specific needs. And by bringing each student’s e-portfolio into class discussion,

instructors can create learning opportunities for the group by integrating self-reflection and critical

review into class activities.

 

  

18 

The benefits of successful e-portfolio use are many and include: guiding students to become

content producers, helping students learn to critically self-reflect, allowing faculty members to manage

and evaluate student work over long periods, giving faculty members a tool to prove teaching

credentials, giving tenure track faculty a container for tenure materials, and allowing a division to track

learning outcomes via a measurable metric, which is valuable for accreditation and funding needs. But

to realize any of these benefits faculty members must buy-in to the necessity of incorporating e-portfolio

strategies, and also agree on the need to shift teaching methods toward an interactive Web 2.0 world in

which the educator helps navigate and leverage ubiquitous information. At the same time, academic

divisions must create integrated curriculum in which each class builds toward mastery skills. In order to

accomplish any of this, faculty members need complete support from administrators for extensive

technical and pedagogical training, as well as support during a transition period covering several years in

which student evaluations of teacher performance might suffer as instructors experiment to find the most

appropriate ways to incorporate new pedagogical and technological tools required for successful use of

e-portfolios.

 

  

19 

References

[1] Barrett, H., Professional development for implementing electronic portfolios. Retrieved March 1,

2012 from http://electronicportfolios.org/teachers/profdev.html. 2005.

[2] Barrett, H., Batson, T., Cambridge, D., Clark, E., Eynon, Bret., Peet, M., Richarsdon, J., The future

of e-portfolio: roundtable. Presented at the international conference La Guardia community college,

CUNY. Retrieved March 1, 2012 from http://www.academiccommons.org/commons/essay/future-

eportfolio-roundtable. 2008.

[3] Bass, Randy. (2009, March 15). Can we promote experimentation and innovation in learning as well

as accountability? Interview with Terrel Rhodes. Academic Commons. Retrieved March 1, 2012 from

http://www.academiccommons.org/commons/essay/value-project-rhodes-interview

[4] Batson, T., The electronic portfolio boom: what's it all about? Campus Technology. Retrieved

March 1, 2012 from http://campustechnology.com/Articles/2002/11/The-Electronic-Portfolio-Boom-

Whats-it-All-About.aspx?Page=1. November 26, 2002.

[5] Batson, T., A survey of the electronic portfolio market sector: Analysis and surprising trends.

Campus Technology. Retrieved March 1, 2012 from

http://campustechnology.com/Articles/2011/10/12/A-Survey-of-the-Electronic-Portfolio-Market-

Sector.aspx?p=1. October 12, 2011.

[6] Chou, Pao-Nan, & Chen, Wei-Fan, E-portfolio use at higher education institutions: Potential

problems for pedagogy. In A. Méndez-Vilas, A. Solano Martín, J.A. Mesa González and J. Mesa

González (Ed.): Research, Reflections and Innovations in Integrating ICT in Education (Vol.3). pp.

1312-1315. Badajoz, Spain: FORMATEX. 2009.

[8] Crews, T., Miller, J., Brown, C., Assessing Faculty’s Technology Needs. Educause Quarterly

Volume 32 Nov 4, 2009. Retrieved March 1, 2012 from

http://www.educause.edu/EDUCAUSE+Quarterly/EDUCAUSEQuarterlyMagazineVolum/AssessingFa

 

  

20 

cultysTechnologyNee/192969. 2009.

[9] de Freitas, Sara., Griffiths, M., The convergence of gaming practices with other media forms: what

potential for learning? A review of the literature. Learning, Media and Technology. 33(1), 11-20. 2008.

[10] Demski, J., E-portfolios: Are we there yet? Campus Technology. Retrieved March 1, 2012 from

http://campustechnology.com/research/2012/03/digital-edition_march.aspx. March, 2012.

[11] Drury, M., E-portfolios – an effective tool? Universitas, 2(2). Retrieved March 1, 2012 from

http://www.uni.edu/universitas/archive/fall06/pdf/art_drury.pdf. Fall, 2006.

[12] Fischman, J., Electronic portfolios: a path to the future of learning. Wired Campus. The Chronicle

of Higher Education. Retrieved March 1, 2012 from http://chronicle.com/blogs/wiredcampus/electronic-

portfolios-a-path-to-the-future-of-learning/4582. March 18, 2009.

[13] Foley, A., Adobe e-portfolio: Using e-portfolios to demonstrate growth and assess learning.

Retrieved March 1, 2012 from

http://wwwimages.adobe.com/www.adobe.com/content/dam/Adobe/en/education/pdfs/acrobat-

eportfolios-wp.pdf. October, 2008.

[14] Gathercoal, P., Love, D., Bryde, B. and McKean, G., On implementing web-based electronic

portfolios: a webfolio program lets instructors and students use the web to improve teaching and

learning. EDUCAUSE QUARTERLY. Retrieved March 1, 2012 from

http://net.educause.edu/ir/library/pdf/EQM0224.pdf. November 2, 2002.

[15] Ittelson, J., Know Your E-Portfolio. Converge: Strategy and Leadership for Technology in

Education. Retrieved March 1, 2012 from

http://media.centerdigitaled.com/Converge_Mag/pdfs/issues/ConvergeSum08_72.pdf. Summer, 2008.

[16] Jafari, Ali, The “sticky” e-portfolio system: tackling challenges and identifying attribute. Educause

Review, 39 (4). 38–49. 2004.

[17] Lambert, C., DePaepe, J., Lambert, L., and Anderson, D., e-Portfolios in Action. Kappa Delta Pi

 

  

21 

Record. Winter 2007.

[18] Lankshear, C., Snyder, I., and Green,B., Teachers and TechnoLiteracy: Managing Literacy,

Technology and Learning in Schools. St. Leonards, Australia: Allen & Unwin. 2000.

[19] Meyer, B., Latham, N., Implementing electronic portfolios: Benefits, challenges and suggestions.

Educause Quarterly 31, no. 1. Retrieved March 1, 2012 from

http://educause.edu/EDUCAUSE+QuarterlyMagazineVolum/ImplementingElectronicPortfoli/162514.

Janurary – March, 2008.

[20] Moore, A., Fowler, S., Watson, C., Active learning and technology: designing change for faculty,

students, and institutions. Educause Review, vol. 42, no. 5 (September/October 2007): 42–61. Retrieved

March 15, 2012 from

http://www.educause.edu/EDUCAUSE+Review/EDUCAUSEReviewMagazineVolume42/ActiveLearni

ngandTechnologyDes/161908. 2007.

[21] Ouyang, J. R., and K. Andrews., E-portfolio for in-service teachers training: Beauty and thorn.

Presentation at annual conference of the Society for Information Technology and Teacher Education.

2004.

[22] Rasberry, M., Mahajan, G., From Isolation to Collaboration: Promoting Teacher Leadership

Through PLCs. Center for Teaching Quality (September 2008). Retrieved March 1, 2012 from

http://eric.ed.gov/PDFS/ED503637.pdf. 2008.

[23] Reese, M., Levy, R., Assessing the future: E-portfolio trends, uses, and options in higher education.

Educause Center for Applied Research. Research Bulletin. Volume 2009, Issue 4. Retrieved March 1,

2012 from https://jscholarship.library.jhu.edu/bitstream/handle/1774.2/33329/ECAR-

RB_Eportfolios.pdf. February 24, 2009.

[24] Robinson, Ken, Changing Paradigms. [Video webcast]. Retrieved March 1, 2012 from

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zDZFcDGpL4U. October 14, 2010.

 

  

22 

[25] Waters, John K., E-Portfolios Come of Age. T.H.E. Journal. 36 (10). 2009.

[26] Wesch, M., Web 2.0 ... The machine is us/ing us. [Video webcast]. Retrieved March 1, 2012 from

http://www.youtube.com/user/mwesch#p/u/13/6gmP4nk0EOE. January 31, 2007.

[27] Wesch, M., A portal to media literacy. [Video webcast]. Retrieved March 1, 2012 from

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J4yApagnr0s. July 10, 2008.

[28] Yancey, K., Cambridge, B., Cambridge, D., Making common cause: electronic portfolios, learning,

and the power of community. Academic Commons. Excerpted from: electronic portfolio 2.0: emergent

research on implementation and impact.

Retrieved March 1, 2012 from http://www.academiccommons.org/commons/essay/making-common-

cause-electronic-portfolios. January 7, 2009.

[29] Young, J., Reaching the last technology holdouts at the front of the classroom. The Chronicle of

Higher Education. Retrieved March 1, 2012 from

http://chronicle.com/article/Reaching-the-Last-Technology/123659/. July 24, 2010.

Biographies

Michele Houston is a Senior Lecturer and Studio Manager for the Department of Journalism at Southern

Methodist University. She is a graduate student of Learning Technologies at University of North Texas.

She earned her B.S. in Film from The University of Texas. Michele is a video producer, editor and

teacher whose research interest lies in the intersection of new media technologies and the future of

education.

Dr. Lin is an Assistant Professor of Learning Technologies at University of North Texas. She received

her doctoral degree in Communication, Computing, and Technology in Education from Teachers

College, Columbia University. Lin's research interest lies in the intersections of new media and

technologies, information science, cognition, psychology, and education. In the past few years, she has

 

  

23 

conducted research in online learning, games, social media, and media multitasking issues. Dr. Lin’s

research has been published in top-tier journals such as the Proceedings of the National Academy of

Sciences, Computers and Education, Computers in the Schools, Journal of Asynchronous Learning

Network, Teachers College Record, and Teaching in Higher Education. She has presented numerous

research papers at major academic conferences. For more information, visit

http://courseweb.unt.edu/llin/ or contact her at Lin.Lin@unt.edu