Choices Choices: A Look into E-Portfolio Software Options

EDCI591 Nov. 20, 07

Dr. Tim Hopper Chris Filler

9908684

eP: Choices Choices

2

Electronic portfolios have a greater potential to alter higher education at its very core than

any other technology application we've known thus far. (Batson, 2002)

Once experimental projects in a few far-flung universities,

e-Portfolios are no longer the “coming thing”… all indicators that a concept or technology

has moved beyond the early adopter stage , have been in place with e-Portfolios for several years.,

The time for wide spread adoption is now. (Visvanathan, 2006)

The Electronic Portfolio (eP) – Definitions

According to a 2003 definition by the National Learning Infrastructure Initiative,

an eP is an electronic portfolio – “a collection of authentic and diverse evidence, drawn

from a larger archive representing what a person or organization has learned over time on

which the person or organization has reflected, and designed for presentation to one or

more audiences for a particular rhetorical purpose” (Barker, 2005).

Referring to portfolios in general, Butler (2006) states that,

Portfolios are a collection of evidence that is gathered together to show a person’s learning journey over time and to demonstrate their abilities. Portfolios can be specific to a particular discipline, or very broadly encompass a person’s lifelong learning. Many different kinds of evidence can be used in a portfolio: samples of writing, both finished and unfinished; photographs; videos; research projects; observations and evaluations of supervisors, mentors and peers; and reflective thinking about all of these. In fact, it is the reflections on the pieces of evidence, the reasons they were chosen and what the portfolio creator learned from them, that are the key aspect to a portfolio. (p.2).

The term eP refers to two separate elements, the digital archive or database, and

the presentation drawn from it to be used for a variety of different purposes. According to

Trent Batson, formerly of Rhode Island University and founding chair of the board for

the Open Source Portfolio, since the mid-90s, the term ‘ePortfolio’ has been used to

eP: Choices Choices

3

describe collections of student work within a web context. He states that the general

meaning of the term eP, “is a dynamic website that interfaces with a database of student

work artefacts” (2002). He differentiates eP’s from webfolios which he states are static

websites that function on HTML links. Therefore, according to Batson, the distinguishing

feature of eP’s is the fact that it is database-driven and dynamic rather than a static,

HTML-driven website.

Jay Visvanathan of Sun Microsystems, makers of Nuventive’s iWebfolio software

defines eP’s as “organized collections of digital information that represent what an

individual has learned over time, how they have reflected on that learning, and how they

choose to present that learning to others” (2006).

Educational consultants FuturEd, based out of Vancouver, define an eP system as

“a system of production by individuals or organizations for reception and use by the

creator, other individuals and organizations, made effective, efficient and electronic

through the use of information and communication technology” (FuturEd, 2004).

Through a recent web search on e-portfolio, it becomes clear that there is no one

single definition for eP’s, just as there is no single use for eP’s either.

Uses of eP

The adoption of eP’s over the last decade or so has come on the heels of an

increase in a reliance and use of technology in all aspects of education

Student work today, be it research papers, presentations, experiments, or group collaborations, is largely being captured in digital, rather than paper form, lending itself well to electronic presentation and organizational tools like e-Portfolios. More importantly, an increasing amount of this content is being created in open, rather than proprietary standards. This increases e-Portfolio's interoperability and virtual life ,while increasing the opportunities for collaboration. (Visvanathan, 2006).

eP: Choices Choices

4

Visvanathan (2006) states that there are essentially 3 main types of eP’s,

‘developmental’, ‘reflective’ and ‘representational’. Where a developmental eP is used

primarily to document the achievements of an owner toward a particular goal, such as the

acquisition of an undergraduate degree, a reflective eP adds the opportunity for the owner

to add personal learning reflections to content. A representational eP is geared towards

providing evidence towards a selected goal, such as getting a job, or demonstrating task

achievement for accreditation purposes. Rather than mutually exclusive, the three main

types can be mixed to meet a variety of institutional and individual needs.

Barrett and Wilkerson (2004) outline two ends of the eP continuum. They look to

work done by Pearl and Leon Paulson (1994) who state that ePs can be broken down into

either positivist or constructivist functions. In a positivist framework, “the purpose of the

portfolio is to assess learning outcomes and those outcomes are, generally, defined

externally. Positivism assumes that meaning is constant across users, contexts, and

purposes… The portfolio is a receptacle for examples of student work used to infer what

and how much learning has occurred.” (p.36). From a constructivist standpoint, the eP

becomes “a learning environment in which the learner constructs meaning. It assumes

that meaning varies across individuals, over time, and with purpose. The portfolio

presents process, a record of the processes associated with learning itself; a summation of

individual portfolios would be too complex for normative description.” (p.36)

Zeichner and Wray (2001) emphasise three different types of portfolios. These are

a ‘learning portfolio’, which acts as documentation of student learning over time; a

‘credential portfolio’, which is designed for accreditation or registration purposes; and a

‘showcase portfolio’, which acts as the students polished finished product.

eP: Choices Choices

5

Similarly, according to Abrami and Barrett (2005), an eP can either be a ‘process

portfolio’ which shows the user's learning journey over time, a ‘showcase portfolio’,

which demonstrates the accomplishments of the student academic or otherwise, and an

‘assessment portfolio’ which is to be used for accreditation or certification purposes.

Smith and Tillema (2003) refer to four different types of portfolio. A portfolio

which is used for employment purposes and whose content is mandated is referred to as a

‘dossier portfolio’. An eP which is also mandated, but used to track learning and

professional development is termed a ‘training portfolio’. An eP which leaves the choice

of content and emphasis up to the student is a ‘reflective portfolio’. Finally, a self-

directed learning and development portfolio is a ‘personal development portfolio’.

While there is a multitude of uses for eP’s, the one constant is that all eP’s, by

their very nature, exist on a digital platform. For those contemplating implementation of

this potentially powerful technology, there are many issues to consider before settling on

just one.

How to Decide Which Software to Use

According to the educational consultants at FuturEd.com there are a few key

questions that every institution should consider before committing to one eP software

package over another. As outlined in their white paper: Consumer Guide to ePortfolio

Tools and Services: Making an Informed Choice, questions are broken down into two

broad categories:

• questions about the eP tools, systems and services, and

• questions about the organization's resources and needs.

eP: Choices Choices

6

Regarding eP tools themselves, the institution should begin by analyzing the track

record of the provider, supplier or producer of eP packages. What is its history and how

long has the particular program been in use? Has it been updated and revised? How

serviceable is it? What about interoperability? Is it flexible enough to accommodate a

variety of users and purposes? How reliable and credible is the provider? What type of

track record does their package have?

According to FuturEd’s Consumer Guide, the nature of the product must also be

considered. For example, is it a product that is being purchased, or is it a service contract?

Is the product software or a web application? How user friendly and easily accessible is

the platform? What equipment is needed on the part of the institution? What about

confidentiality and end product ownership?

The institution must also thoroughly assess what its requirements are in

implementing the eP. What is the intended purpose of the eP? Is it focused on process or

product? Or is it intended to be both? FuturEd outlines other questions related to purpose

such as is its main purpose for presentation of achievements; assessment of programmatic

learning; reflective life long learning, or other forms of institutional evaluation? An

institution should also consider who will be targeted to use the eP and who will be the

intended audience. Other considerations include issues of authenticity of the product, as

well as security of the platform and the amount of staffing needed to administer and

maintain it.

Zeichner and Wray (2001) add the following questions for an institution

considering the implementation of en eP:

• Who decides what should be included in a portfolio: the student compiling the portfolio,

eP: Choices Choices

7

or the people for whom it is being created? How prescriptive should guidelines for

creating a portfolio be (considering the issue of stifling user creativity)?

• How should the pieces of evidence in the portfolio be organised: around themes chosen

by the student, around programme goals, or around achievement standards?

• What kinds of artefacts are acceptable as pieces of evidence? What should, and should

not, be included in the portfolio?

• What kind of input should tutors, lecturers and peers have throughout the process of

constructing the portfolio? Should there be a lot of involvement, or just a little? How

frequently should students be expecting feedback on their progress?

• How should the portfolio be assessed: through very specific evaluation criteria and

grading rubrics, or a more general pass-fail system?

• What should happen to the portfolio after it is finished: should there be some kind of

public acknowledgement or presentation of students’ work?

Clearly there is much to consider when a decision is made to utilize eP’s as an

educational tool on campus. An institution must also consider some of the challenges that

go along with the integration of this technology.

eP: Implementation Challenges

Lorenzo and Ittleson (2005) outline a number of challenges faced by the

institution which decide to proceed with the implementation of a campus-wide eP as part

of its institutional makeup.

• Team – It is critical that institutional buy-in occurs on a campus wide level,

especially from higher administrative levels. The implementation of a campus

eP: Choices Choices

8

wide eP is a labour intensive undertaking and requires full engagement from the

entire team if it is to be successful.

• Staff – Without administrative support in the form of staffing time, the eP may

easily fail to meet its goals. Initialization, start up sessions, and ongoing

maintenance and updates all require a large amount of dedicated staffing hours.

• Diversity of Documentation – Too easily can an eP become nothing more than a

‘digital file cabinet’. The goal should be to provide for diverse elements such as

discussion boards, multimedia presentations and examples of student learning

outcomes. These elements take plenty of time and expertise.

• Representing Student Learning – The development of links to student eP’s and

examples of authentic student learning outcomes is a daunting task.

• Meaningful Aggregation of Information – The sheer size of all the information

that is potentially accrued over the life process of an eP program makes it difficult

to analyze, ensuring meaningful representation and aggregation.

• Multimedia – Although a major benefit of the digital format, it also comes with its

own set of deterrents. Multimedia components are costly and potentially very time

consuming and are therefore important issues to consider.

• Web Site Design – It is important that the website be navigable and user friendly,

especially for accreditation purposes.

• Content Management – Appropriate and effective software designed to organize

and integrate system data in a logical format, including timely upgrades and

regular maintenance is essential.

eP: Choices Choices

9

• Comfort with Technology – The fact that not everybody, including some

members of the accreditation team, are comfortable navigating an eP database.

Wade & Yarbrough (1996) point out that a particularly salient challenge when

implementing an eP requirement is student anxiety. Lack of clarity and historical

examples combined with minimal supervisor led guidelines and support can act to

exacerbate this problem.

Zeichner and Wray (2001) add that a challenge for many institutions is finding

balance in the amount of self-directed learning that takes place. Too much student driven

choice and the result may be watered down and superficial reflections, too prescribed and

the eP process may lose its authenticity.

Smith and Tillema (2003) point out that the time consuming nature of the eP is a

challenge in itself. Often students, new to the process, require lots of support from

supervisors, instructors or technical resource staff. Darling (2001) states that there is a

growing disconnect between the requirement for reflective writing and the students’

ability to do so. This also requires instructor or supervisor time to deal with this

limitation.

According to Zeichner and Wray (2001) there is also a difference of opinion in

the goals of the eP in the first place. Students seem more interested in the final outcome

and see the eP as strictly an aid to acquiring employment, whereas instructors and

administrators believe it to be a tool used for professional development, tracking student

learning outcomes, and program assessment. Smith and Tillema (2003) note that there is

also debate surrounding the act of assessment of the eP. Depending on how prescriptive

eP: Choices Choices

10

the assessment criteria become, they may counteract the creative style and subjective

quality of the eP process.

While there are many challenges that exist for the institution in the creation of a

eP climate on campus, there are many success stories that begin with an idea of using

technology to aid in the teaching and learning in today’s digital world. For as long as

there has been the need for eP’s, there have been software companies eager to meet that

need with innovative eP programs.

eP Software Options

For the purposes of this paper, I will outline three of the more well developed eP

providers, Epsilen, iWebfolio and Open Source Portfolio Initiative (OSPI).(see Appendix

A for a more complete list).

The Epsilen Environment

This software has the potential for involving many students and faculty in the development of online electronic portfolios, which could serve as powerful tools to assess student learning, as well as becoming portable, transferable records of what they have accomplished — a kind of ‘super-resumé’ career-building tool

Dr. Bernie Bopp, University of Toledo (www.epsilen.com) Displayed on the home page of its website, Epsilen boasts to have 8216 members

from 649 member institutions. Epsilen is the brainchild of Dr. Ali Jafari

(http://jafari.iupui.epsilen.com), and the result of 6 years of research and development in

the CyberLab, Purdue School of Engineering and Technology at Indiana University

Purdue University at Indianapolis (IUPUI). Epsilen represents the epitome of next gen

eP’s, eP2.0 technology. As its websites’ name suggests, the Epsilen Environment is more

than just a stand alone eP platform. Rather, it encapsulates an entire suite of software

options. The Epsilen suite includes ePs, Learning Matrix, a Global Learning System

eP: Choices Choices

11

(GLS), Group Collaboration, Object Sharing and Repository, Blogs, WIKI, Messaging,

Resume, Social and Professional Networking, and much more...The eP on its own

becomes a type of lost leader for Epsilen. They advertise that every student registered at

an accredited post secondary institution in the US is eligible to receive a free eP. Epsilen

emphasizes social networking and ePs towards the creation of what it terms “global

eLearning”, creating a new environment for the next generation of eP users. Described by

some users as an “academic Facebook,” Epsilen focuses on connecting its users through

the Epsilen environment and its four pillars, learning, teaching, networking and

collaboration. (www.epsilen.com). According to Jafari, “the Epsilen concept suggests

that every student and professional should own a lifelong ePortfolio enabling them to

collaborate and exchange intellect in a global community.” (NY Times, 2007).

According to the Epsilen website, users of the free account are provided the tools

enabling them to:

• Create and maintain a professional eP

• Engage in professional and social networking

• Showcase scholarly work and other documents in a wide range of formats

• Develop and share resumes

• Store and share files/objects

• Use Epsilen e-mail, blog, wiki, and other communication and

collaboration tools

• Create and participate in professional collaboration groups

• Access to online courses and trainings using the Epsilen Global Learning

System (GLS) courseware.

eP: Choices Choices

12

• Produce a personal eP Web site with profile, photos and video

• Receive an automated weekly Epsilen status report that lets you know

about those that have visited your “corner”, share similar research,

teaching, internship or consulting interests.

However, if the user’s institution purchases an Exploratory Institutional membership

license from Epsilen, beginning at $5,000 USD for a school with a maximum of 2,000

users, then the following services and functions become possible:

• Administrative account to brand, monitor, and maintain internal ePortfolio

accounts of your students ,faculty and alumnae

• Institutional ePortfolio site for your college or university

• Global announcement and message broadcasting to ePortfolio accounts associated

with your institution

• Delivery of 12 online courses or training using Epsilen’s Global Learning System

(GLS), with the option to incorporate New York Times content described below

• Direct access to the Epsilen helpdesk

• A hosted Web-based solution that requires no, or little, institutional IT support

• Ability to upgrade to other licensed services (see below)

• Ability to integrate Epsilen with campus SIS (see below)

• Ability to cross list courses across institutions, departments, and schools

Institutions may also purchase an annual Student Learning Matrix (SLM)

membership, with fees based on user account numbers. The SLM is to be used by

students through an automated learning outcome assessment tool for both summative and

formative learning assessment. Features include:

eP: Choices Choices

13

• Creation of unlimited student learning matrices for program- or campus-level

learning outcome assessment (Each axis includes attributes defined by the

program/campus.)

• Ability for students to upload their learning outcomes according to predefined

rubrics

• Access by faculty and academic advisors to each student learning matrix for

assessment, advisement, and certification

• Program- and campus-level assessment reports for internal and external

accreditation reviews

• A hosted Web-based solution that requires no institutional IT support

Institutions also have the option in joining the Global Learning System (GLS), a

new Web-based learning framework developed as the next generation of eLearning and

networking. Cost is reflective of number of user accounts and courses offered. Epsilen

claims the GLS offers true global learning collaboration by connecting students and

instructors on campuses in the U.S. and around the world in an interactive and intuitive

Web 2.0 learning environment. The GLS features include:

• Global learning management system that enables students and instructors to easily

register or be invited to courses and learning collaboration

• Cross listing of class rosters of two or more courses within various campuses, or

across institutions

• Innovative tools using professional and social networking to enhance learning,

encourage collaboration, and utilize peer review technology

eP: Choices Choices

14

• The ability to easily archive courses and working groups for continued

engagement

• A hosted Web-based solution that requires little, or no institutional IT support

For the institution that wants it all, Epsilen makes it possible with the Charter

membership. Charter members experience the full suite of Epsilen Environment features.

Benefits of charter membership include:

• Single sign-on environment featuring a toolbox of services for ePortfolio, social

networking, Learning Matrix, GLS, object repository, and NYTKnowledge

Network

• Totally hosted turnkey solution with no need for local servers or local technical

staff

• Cost effectiveness for both small and large campuses

• Collaboration on designing the next generation of eLearning through networking

with other members of the Epsilen - New York Times charter council

The September 6th, 2007 edition of the NY Times newspaper included a press

release and a full page ad announcing that Epsilen has partnered with the NY Times to

provide member institutions with unlimited access to the NYTKnowledge Network

which includes access to a repository of archived NY Times dating back to1851 as well

as exclusives such as participating in webcasts with NY Times correspondents and

columnists all with the purpose of adding value to the traditional classroom experience.

Bowling Green State University (BGSU) was one of the first institutions to sign

on with Epsilen. Psychology professor Dr. Milt Hakel was responsible for bringing

Epsilen to BGSU in 2003. Because of it’s partnership with Epsilen, BGSU was awarded

eP: Choices Choices

15

the Council on Higher Education Accreditation's 2007 Award for Institutional Progress in

Student Learning Outcomes. According to Hakel, “Epsilen electronic portfolios for

students combine documentation, reflective self-assessment of those documents, and

evaluation and certification by faculty in a unified framework that shows tangibly what

students can do with their knowledge…students use electronic portfolios as a ready

means to showcase their achievements and discover that reflecting on their work leads to

deeper engagement in learning and higher confidence in being effective performers.”

(http://utnews.utoledo.edu).

Nuventive – iWebfolio “PSU has a strong commitment to teacher education and these programs are required to focus upon many state and national standards. The iWebfolio solution has helped students demonstrate proficiency related to these standards and also serves as a viable model for assessment with practical applications for the students’ future teaching careers… iWebfolio gives learners more freedom within and personalization of their portfolios. It lets them be creative and flexible with their artifacts while simultaneously allowing the structure we have outlined.”

Assistant Professor of Education & Technology Plymouth State University

“I am amazed at the quality of students’ reflections, their ability to self-assess and to connect their self-assessments with concrete goals and objectives.”

Director of Career Development and Advising Northeastern Ohio Universities College of Medicine

“The most valuable aspect I see in iWebfolio is its ease of use. As a reviewer, in a few minutes you can develop templates that provide owners with a framework that allows them to build a well-organized portfolio with a professional look that is easy for you to review and provide feedback in a timely and comprehensive manner. When building portfolios, owners go through a four-step process (collect, select, reflect, present). As an owner, the tool facilitates the collection process by offering guides that can be used to document achievements, competencies, skills, etc. The process of selecting and attaching items for presentation is also very easy, allowing the owner to focus on the critical aspect of portfolio thinking, the reflection.”

Former Coordinator; University-wide ePortfolio Pilot Project University of British Columbia

(A sample of testimonials retrieved from www.nuventive.com).

eP: Choices Choices

16

According to Nuventive, the makers of iWebfolio, their eP software suite, or

“electronic portfolio management system” works to help “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”. It is “designed to help students, faculty and staff prepare, manage, reflect,

share and present the results of the student’s academic career as well as co-curricular and

personal experiences” (http://www.nuventive.com).

Founded in 2000, with iWebfolio launched in 2002, its clients number over 150

institutions worldwide. According to Malcolm Hobbs, vice president of marketing and

business development at Sun Microsystems partner Nuventive eP’s are much more than

electronic file cabinets in which to place digital files, providing organization and

perspective to the data. “It's an important distinction,” notes Hobbs. “An individual can

have an unlimited number of portfolios, each representing a different viewpoint of their

life, such as academics, community service,or athletics, or any combination of those

things. It all gets back to the concept of the individual having lifetime control.”

(Visvanathan, 2006).

Nuventive claims that iWebfolio represents “the most configurable electronic

portfolio solution on the market and can be tailored, integrated, and extended without the

time-consuming and costly customization of traditional legacy tools”.

Nuventive seems to have centred its eP package around the notion of lifelong

learning and connections. A graphic on their front page entitled “Life Long Value Chain

for ePortfolio Applications, aptly illustrates this angle.

eP: Choices Choices

17

Nuventive approaches the issue of security with its programs very consciously. It

asks “are your valuable intellectual assets as secure as your financial ones?”

As part of its eP software package, Nuventive has added TracDat, a

comprehensive, institution-wide assessment program. TracDat works seamlessly with

iWebfolio to enable easy assessment of student artefact and reflection samples from

iWebfolio. TracDat is designed to work at a system, department or individual level.

According to Nuventive benefits of TracDat include:

• Systematic approach establishes common understanding and language

eP: Choices Choices

18

• Define and align goals among all levels of the institution

• Document how results are used to improve programs & learning – a key factor in

accreditation

• Develop, review and revise assessment plan from any Web browser

• Easy access to supporting data & evidence

• Embraced by faculty

• Robust reporting – real-time visibility and documentation

• Data stored in a single location for security and accessibility

iWebfolio puts the student back in control of his/her learning. According to its

makers, institutions which choose to purchase Nuventive’s services will develop through

“focusing education back on teaching and learning rather than on test taking”

(Visvanathan, 2006).

eP: Choices Choices

19

Nuventive lists some case studies as testimonials on its website. Each case

exploring how iWebfolio and TracDat have met their needs for a comprehensive eP suite.

In 2003 Northeastern Ohio Universities College of Medicine (NEOUCOM) joined the

Nuventive team, purchasing its license to operate iWebfolio on its campuses. Among the

reasons NEOUCOM decided on iWebfolio was its “ability to collect, organize and share

activities and achievements; educational, professional and personal goals; and reflections

on the learning experience”. Furthermore, NEOUCOM reports that iWebfolio has helped

their students track their learning in a ‘real time’ basis. Implementation of iWebfolio

began in 2004, as a required element of the elective course Gender, Media and Medicine.

Feedback from both students and faculty was positive.

The faculty found that a valuable dialogue was created within iWebfolio through the use of faculty feedback and student reflection. This exchange revealed a level and depth of engagement by the students that was not always manifested in the classroom environment. It also helped to identify course elements that students found especially interesting and highlighted areas that required additional discussion. The curriculum design teams will use this feedback in the evaluation of electronic portfolios as a component in the new medical school curriculum. At NEOUCOM the eP is seen as an opportunity for students to partake in

longitudinal tracking of professional development coupled with managing their progress

toward required curricular outcomes. NEOUCOM has built a goal setting component into

their use of the eP. This collaborative venture relies particularly on the reflective

capabilities of the iWebfolio. “iWebfolio’s strong reflection component enables students

to thoughtfully consider coursework and field experiences, and also provides

considerable insight for faculty about the student’s connection to, and understanding of,

the curriculum content.”

eP: Choices Choices

20

Woodbury University (WU) in Los Angeles, has been using iWebfolio since early

2005. WU was encouraged to create more tools for data collection and use through its

most recent process of accreditation. WU chose to implement an eP in order to help with

this issue, but also to improve program development, as well as helping their students

find employment. According to Steve Dyer, Chief Information Officer at WU, “[w]e

believe that e-Portfolios will give our students a competitive advantage in finding

employment and at the same time allow us to assess the effectiveness of our instruction in

educating the student for lifelong success.”

According to WU one particular challenge was finding a way to convince students

of the value of eP’s when that value was not realized until some time in the future. This

point of view neglects the positive learning that occurs throughout the creation and use of

the eP while still studying.

WU also utilizes the eP as a tool for faculty members, both in their curriculum

development and ongoing assessment of student work and course goals, but also in the

assessment of individual faculty members themselves.

The WU case study also outlines some challenges they experienced in

implementing iWebfolio. On the faculty side, unfamiliar technology and philosophical

issues combined with ‘not having enough time to do yet another thing’ needed to be

overcome. But the WASC accreditation provided the compelling reason for putting the

project on a ‘not if, but when’ footing”. As far as students were concerned, it was not the

familiarity with the technical aspects of the program that became the issue, however, the

major concern coming from students was the perception that the program did not allow

for enough time to complete the required ‘new’ element of the eP. WU seemed to rely on

eP: Choices Choices

21

the narrow eP = job as justification, neglecting the lifelong learning and ongoing

professional development opportunities that are possible. To conclude the case study,

Dyer reiterates the importance top down buy in from the upper echelons of any institution

as critical to the ground swelling needed to make an eP work in a campus setting.

Plymouth State University (PSU) began using iWebfolio in its teacher education

program in 2003. Certification standards were the primary drive behind implementing the

eP software, however, a broader perspective including ongoing assessment and

professional development were also motivators in the decision to adopt iWebfolio as a

learning tool. PSU sees the importance of future teachers being able to pass on the

learning that is possible from this eP to their students. According to Dr. Kenneth Heuser,

Professor in the Faculty of Education

[iWebfolio] will let our students produce portable documentation of their current competencies, and they will be able to add to their portfolios throughout their careers as evidence of their own professional development… It directs the students to address standards that the University thinks are important, and allows the students to thoughtfully reflect upon their courses and field experiences. Students are encouraged to put their own personal stamp on the portfolios by highlighting their unique talents and experiences. We are also using the application to help students demonstrate competency in program strands like diversity, technology, and the differentiated classroom. After comparing several different eP providers, PSU chose iWebfolio for three

reasons. Firstly, it allowed for reflections to occur at multiple levels. Students can reflect

not only at the artefact level, but also at the level of category (competency) and also at the

level of portfolio as a whole. Secondly, iWebfolio has a built in rubric feature for

evaluation, for both the entire eP and also its parts. Thirdly, iWebfolio allows internal and

external reviewers secure access to student content and feedback provided.

eP: Choices Choices

22

Open Source Portfolio Initiative – OSPI

The advantages of this approach speak for themselves. OSP is one of the best-designed content management systems for education that I have seen. Its attention to the user interface means both convenience and high scalability for end users, and the integration with SAKAI connects portfolios to other aspects of online learning. These advantages place OSP far ahead of its competitors, including commercial proprietary software such as WebCT (Byfield, 2006).

OSPI is an evolving group of institutions and individuals collaborating on the

development of a non-proprietary open source electronic portfolio software solution.

OSP was begun in January 2003 as a joint project of the University of Minnesota, the

University of Delaware, and The rSmart Group, a commercial company specializing in

open source applications for education (Byfield, 2006). More recently, the 2.0 release of

2005 was designed by an international, multidisciplinary team to encompass a number of

best practices to provide a rich, flexible and open environment to accommodate a variety

of potential uses. OSPI version 2.0 was funded by a grant of $518,000 from the Mellon

Foundation and matching funds from Indiana University and The rSmart Group.

Portability of the tool was deemed critical and the e-Portfolio infrastructure was

developed using a Sakai-based process using Open Knowledge Initiative (OKI) OsiDs

and IMS standards to enable seamless integration with other applications and services

(Visvanathan, 2006). (see Appendix B for a comparative look at all OSP versions).

OSPI provides portfolio-based activities by creating an environment in

which a person, as a portfolio owner, is able to exhibit their work. Tools which are at a

portfolio owners disposal allow them to collect items that best represent their

accomplishments, their learning, or their work; to reflect upon these artifacts as well as be

eP: Choices Choices

23

in control of the design function of the eP itself and to publish the eP for a designated

audience (Coppola, 2006). OSPI eP’s can be shared in four different ways:

1. published to other OSP users by name or role;

2. published to anyone via email address;

3. published to a publicly accessible URL that can be viewed via web browser;

4. published to removable media such as CD-ROM, DVD or USB.

Bruce Byfield, a computer journalist writing for linux.com, completed a review of

OSPI in 2006. He refers to it as “one of the largest open source projects in academia…a

specialized content management system, comparable to WebCT”. He goes on to list its

main functions “to assist universities in administering Web servers, teachers in preparing

online course components, and both teachers and students in designing and using

portfolios”.

OSP provides tools which allow coordinators of Common Interest Groups (CIG)

or program evaluators and administrators to provide structure and guidance for portfolio

owners regarding eP development. CIG coordinators, evaluators, reviewers and portfolio

guests are able to review published portfolios and provide formal evaluation or informal

feedback and comments. Tools for analysis of eP items, for example a detailed report

function, in aggregate also make it possible for CIG coordinators, administrators or

program evaluators to measure program effectiveness or educational outcomes (Coppola,

2006).

OSP also provides ‘Wizards’ which help eP owners with set up, and performing

other organizational and aesthetic functions relating to the collection of data. The wizards

also facilitate guided reflection activities prompting owners to reflect on possible

eP: Choices Choices

24

connections amongst learning experiences. The ‘Portfolio Studio’ is where the user is free

to design the look of their eP. The user can design a hyperlinked multi-page eP, deciding

on style, layout, and navigation customs, or use pre-determined OSP templates provided.

The ‘Portfolio Studio’ allows the owner complete freedom as to the design and overall

function of their eP at a given time and for a given purpose. The owner can customize

their eP to fit any number of specific situations and audiences.

OSP is an enterprise Java (J2EE) application that runs on a server and is accessed

by users through a Web browser such as Mozilla Firefox. The latest version of OSP is

built on the Sakai framework which provides institutions with a common set of software

services for teaching, learning, research, and collaborative project work (Coppola, 2006).

OSP is a volunteer-driven organization. There is no paid development staff, only the

contributions of organizations such as the Carnegie Foundation for the Advancement of

Teaching, DePaul University, George Mason University, Indiana University, Portland

State University, The rSmart Group, Syracuse University, University of Amsterdam,

University of Minnesota Duluth, University of Washington, and Virginia Tech (Coppola,

2006). OSP claims to have more than 100 universities and other educational institutions

as registered contributors and users. A core group of 15-20 programmers representing

about a dozen institutions work on the project on a continual basis (Byfield, 2006).

OSPI was created to respond to the need for educational resources which support

both the individual and the institution. The OSPI eP is primarily designed for the

individual owner, however, the support and organizational framework come directly from

the institution. Coppola provides a list of OSPI objectives:

eP: Choices Choices

25

• Establish an environment that enables an individual to present and reflect upon original, authored work in a manner that facilitates multiple modes of learning, is readily accessed and easy to use • Provide means for individuals to discover and articulate relationships within and between their works within a collection and to discover patterns within those relationships that help them make sense of the whole. • Enable owners to control the visual and navigational design of a portfolio of authored work • Protect the intellectual and personal property rights of individuals who present work through the software • Provide quality information about learning outcomes and rubrics to individual portfolio owners, course instructors, degree program administrators, and institutional administrators • Provide access at the institutional, departmental, and course level to assessment data crucial to evaluating the strengths and weaknesses of efforts to promote learning and participation in the credentialing and accreditation processes • Provide information to learners and teachers seeking to understand the learning process • Provide a tool for faculty and staff development, as well as the hiring, promotion, and tenure processes • Offer default components based on best practices for gathering content, managing workflow, and presenting content for a variety of professional uses • Enable collaboration and exchange of ideas among members of a portfolio community in response to presentation of work • Provide for seamless lateral movement of content between institutional departments, as a transition between roles within an institution, and in moving between institutions, and in managing relationships with multiple institutions simultaneously • Provide an environment built in accordance with national and international standards • Interoperate with human resource, student information, course management, learning management, and other enterprise-wide systems • Provide an environment for students to display their work to potential employers One of the biggest changes in the 2.0 version of OSPI has been the amalgamation

with SAKAI. In order to enhance its collaborative capabilities, OSPI has partnered with

the SAKAI Project. The SAKAI Project (named after iron chef Hiroyuki Sakai in

response to University of Michigan’s CHEF program - CompreHensive collaborativE

Framework) is run by the SAKAI Foundation which is made up of a consortium of

international institutions, namely universities, with the goal of managing and distributing

open source teaching and learning software towards the creation of a Common Learning

Environment (CLE). Originally funded by the Mellon Foundation, SAKAI is a member-

eP: Choices Choices

26

based, non-profit corporation. SAKAI common source software includes common course

management tools such as wikis, email, on line testing, RSS reader, grading report,

discussion thread, and chat function. SAKAI works to increase collaboration between

individuals, institutions and organizations through the promotion and continual

advancement of community-source and open standards approaches to teaching and

learning software solutions (www.sakaiproject.org). Students can take advantage of such

tools as an online scheduler that can print to PDF, a Learning Matrix that records the

status of activities in different classes or groups, a drop box accessible only to them and

their teachers, and a résumé-building tool (Byfield, 2006).

OSPI with its focus on collaboration highlighted by the partnership with the

SAKAI Project is leading the way in terms of accessible, comprehensive and connected

eP software on the market today.

Conclusion

Similar to purchasing any big ticket item, there is a need to do proper and

thorough research into the products available to ensure the right fit. Selecting which eP is

right for a given institution is no exception. It is critical to fully comprehend not only

what the eP software is capable of doing, but also equally important in first determining

exactly what purpose the eP will serve at the institution. Another option, one which was

not discussed in this paper, but one which some institutions are choosing, is the option of

not going with any of the pre-packaged software suites, and instead developing their own

program as a custom eP component.

eP: Choices Choices

27

Appendix A E-Portfolio Software Options

• Avenet's efolio

• Chalk and Wire

• Folio by ePortaro

• Myportfolio

• FolioLive – McGraw Hill

• WebFolio Builder – TaskStream

• College Live Text

• Connecticut Distance Learning Consortium

• True Outcomes

• Masterfile ePortfolio Manager – Concord

• Angel Portfolio – Angel Learning

• Blackboard CMS

• TK-20

eP: Choices Choices

28

eP: Choices Choices

29

eP: Choices Choices

30

eP: Choices Choices

31

eP: Choices Choices

32

Coppola, C. (2006). Understanding the open source portfolio, version 2.1, 2.2 Retrieved

Nov. 14th, 2007, http://bugs.sakaiproject.org/confluence/download/attachments/22304/understandingOSP-October2006.pdf?version=1

eP: Choices Choices

33

References Abrami, P. C., & Barrett, H. (2005). Directions for research and development on

electronic portfolios. Canadian Journal of Learning and Technology, 31(3), online version.

Barker, K. (2005). EPortfolio for the assessment of learning. Retrieved Oct. 3rd, 2007,

http://www.futured.com/documents/FuturEdePortfolioforAssessmentWhitePaper_000.pdf.

Barrett, H. & Wilkerson, J. (2004) Conflicting paradigms in electronic portfolio

approaches. Retrieved Oct. 30th, 2007, http://electronicportfolios.org/systems/paradigms.html

Batson.T (2002).Electronic Portfolio Boom: What’s it all about? Syllabus. retrieved

sept 10, 2007, http://www.campus-technology.com/article.asp?id=6984 Butler, P. (2006). A review of the literature on portfolios and electronic portfolios.

Retrieved Nov. 7th, 2007, https://eduforge.org/docman/view.php/176/1111/ePortfolio%20Project%20Research%20Report.pdf

Byfield, B. (2006). Review: The open source porfolio initiative. Retrieved, Oct. 29th,

2007, http://www.linux.com/articles/51797?tid=13. Coppola, C. (2006). Understanding the open source portfolio, version 2.1, 2.2 Retrieved

Nov. 14th, 2007, http://bugs.sakaiproject.org/confluence/download/attachments/22304/understandingOSP-October2006.pdf?version=1

Darling, L. F. (2001). Portfolio as practice: The narratives of emerging teachers. Teaching and Teacher Education, 17(1), 107-121.

FuturEd (2004). Guide to ePortfolio Tools and Services: Making an Informed Choice.

Retrieved Oct. 30th, 2007, http://futured.com.

NY Times. (2007). The New York Times Introduces an Online Complement to College

and University Courses, Providing Enhanced Classroom and Distance Learning,

Retrieved Nov. 11th, 2007, http://phx.corporate-ir.net/phoenix.zhtml?c=105317&p=irol-pressArticle&ID=1048818&highlight=

Paulson, F.L. & Paulson, P. (1994). Assessing Portfolios Using the Constructivist Paradigm in Fogarty, R. (ed.) (1996) Student Portfolios. Palatine: IRI Skylight Training & Publishing.

eP: Choices Choices

34

Smith, K., & Tillema, H. (2003). Clarifying different types of portfolio use. Assessment

and Evaluation in Higher Education, 28(6), 625-648.

Visvanathan, J (2006). E-Portfolios in education: The time is now! Retrieved Sept. 20th, 2007, http://www.nuventive.com/white_papers/ePortfoliosJVbyline.pdf.

Wade, R. C., & Yarbrough, D. B. (1996). Portfolios: A tool for reflective thinking in teacher education? Teaching and Teacher Education, 12(1), 63-79.

Zeichner, K., & Wray, S. (2001). The teaching portfolio in US teacher education programs: What we know and what we need to know. Teaching and Teacher

Education, 17(5), 613-621.