To investigate master’s program content related to construction of electronic portfolios in an online Educational Technology Leadership (ETL) master’s program and potential transference of concepts to PK-12 classrooms.

1. The Development, Implementation, and
Use of E-portfolios
Presenters:
Diane Mason, Ph.D.
Cindy Cummings, Ed.D.
Sheryl Abshire, Ph.D.
Kay Abernathy, Ed.D.
Blastoff
August 20, 2013

2. I/NCEPR Background
• The Inter/National Coalition for Electronic
Portfolio Research (I/NCEPR) convenes
research/practitioners to study the impact of e-
portfolios on student learning and educational
outcomes.
• Each year 10-12 institutions
selected through an
application process
constitute a three-year cohort.

3. • Bowling Green State University
• Curtin University of Technology (Australia)
• Goshen College
• Indiana University Purdue University Indianapolis
• Lamar University
• Northeastern University
• Portland State University
• University of Georgia
• University of Michigan
• University of Mississippi
• Virginia Military Institute
• Westminster College
I/NCEPR Cohort VI Participants

4. Purpose
To investigate master’s program content
related to construction of electronic
portfolios in an online Educational
Technology Leadership (ETL) master’s
program and potential transference of
concepts to PK-12 classrooms.

5. Introduction
• An e-portfolio is a technology-based storage of
artifacts that demonstrates learning (Barrett,
2005).
• The design is aligned with a constructivist
approach (Paulson & Paulson, 1994).
• Three areas of interest for this study included
the application of Web 2.0 tools for e-portfolio
construction and use, reflection on learning
and transference, and the use of
e-portfolios for formative assessment.

6. Research Questions
• Quantitative
– Has the participation of an ETL master’s
candidate in an e-portfolio process
contributed to the transference of
e-portfolio practices with PK-12 students?
– What identified support systems, barriers,
and challenges did ETL graduates find to exist
in their school regarding technology, policy
and procedures, and implementation of
e-portfolios?

7. Research Questions
• Qualitative
– How has the ETL Master’s graduates’
knowledge of e-portfolio assessment
supported the implementation of digital
portfolios with PK-12 students?

8. Literature Review
• Transference is an individual’s ability to use past
experiences and new knowledge, shaped by interaction,
feedback, and reflections of understanding, to apply in
new learning situations (Bransford & Swartz, 1999).
• Transference aligns with the
foundational approach of
constructivism where learners
demonstrate and apply
knowledge learned from
one context to another
(Berryman, 1990).

9. Literature Review
• Electronic portfolios have a strong support base in
constructivism where learners interact with artifacts
to construct meaning and show evidence of learning
(Avraamidou & Zembal-Saul, 2003; Barrett &
Wilkerson, 2004).
• Historically, electronic portfolios have been used in
higher education (Barrett, 2011).
• The use of electronic portfolios in K-12 are referenced
in the USDOE National Education Technology Plan as a
learning and assessment tool (U.S. Department of
Education, 2010).

10. Quantitative Data
Collection and
Analysis
Qualitative Data
Collection and
Analysis
Follow up
with
Interpretation
Methodology
Explanatory Sequential Design
• Referred to as a two-phase model (Creswell & Plano Clark, 2011).
• Involved collecting quantitative data followed by collecting
qualitative information to better enlighten and explain the
quantitative data results (Creswell, 2012).

11. Participants
• Fall 2011 distributed survey about e-portfolio
use to 289 ETL graduates
– 16 invalid email addresses
– 2 opted out (not PK -12 educators)
• 271 possible respondents
– 110 completed survey
– 41 % response rate

12. Participants
• Examination of 60 e-portfolios representative of
graduates who completed the program during the
same timeframe as the 271 survey respondents
• Analysis revealed three themes
– Web 2.0 Tools
– Reflective Process
– Assessment

13. Design of Instrument
• Developed a pilot survey with a 5 point Likert Scale.
– Tested internal consistency for Likert-style items
using Cronbach’s Alpha.
– Revised survey and conducted another pilot.
– Solicited feedback from field experts.
• Used SurveyMonkey™ to distribute and obtain
anonymous survey responses to the Likert items and
open-ended responses.

14. Quantitative Findings
• Belief that portfolios were valuable regardless whether
paper or electronic.
• Transference limitations
– Digital e-portfolio formats inconsistent in schools and
districts.
– Technology support for design and
implementation of electronic portfolios
in schools and classrooms.
– Technology infrastructure, filtering,
and policies.

15. Qualitative Findings
• “The program has pushed me to explore
new technologies, such as, Web 2.0
applications. Because of these
experiences I directly applied my
learning to my own classroom” (E-
portfolio 1).
• “With Web 2.0, the focus is not on
software, but on practices such as
sharing thoughts and information
through self-publishing and harnessing
the collective intelligence of all users to
generate information and solve
problems” (E-portfolio 2).

16. Qualitative Findings
• “When I understand what they
need and what tools we have to
offer, I can plan effective strategies
and activities that will facilitate
deep, critical learning, leading my
students to be successful citizens as
they continue through life” (E-
Portfolio 3).
• The graduates stated that reflection
was often used by their PK-12
students to explain their learning
through e-portfolio development.

17. Qualitative Findings
• “An e-portfolio would make it
possible for students to interact
outside of the classroom and assist
each other towards a new form of
peer tutoring” (E-Portfolio 4).
• “Electronic portfolios…will follow
them from year to year. Students
will be able to communicate
beyond borders and learn without
limits” (E-Portfolio 5).

18. Recommendations for Future Study
• Examine barriers that impede the transference of
higher education program content to application in
PK-12 settings.
• Research how PK-12 classroom teachers use artifacts
and reflections to provide
formative feedback regarding
student progress.

19. Participants
• Spring 2013 distributed survey about barriers,
challenges, and support to 437 ETL graduates
– 23 invalid email addresses
– 5 opted out (not PK -12 educators)
• 409 possible respondents
– 202 completed survey
– 49 % response rate

20. Literature Review
Barriers
• Availability and access to computers (Barron, Kemker,
Harmes, & Kalaydjian, 2003; Norris, Sullivan, Poirot, &
Soloway, 2003)
• Availability of curriculum materials (Becker & Ravitz, 1999;
Butzin, 1992; NCES, 2000b)
• Teachers beliefs (Ertmer, 2005;
Lumpe & Chambers, 2001; Van Braak, 2001;
Van Braak, Tondeur, & Valcke, 2000;
Vannatta & Fordham, 2004; Wozney,
Venkatesh, & Abrami, 2006)

21. Literature Review
Barriers
• Demographic characteristics of teachers (Bebell,
Russell, & O'Dwyer, 2004; Van Braak, 2001)
• Teachers’ technological and content knowledge
(Pierson, 2001)
• Technical, administrative, and peer support
(Becker & Ravitz, 1999; NCES, 2000;
Ringstaff & Kelly, 2002; Sandholtz &
Reilly, 2004; Van Melle, Cimellaro,
& Shulha, 2003).

22. Literature Review
Challenges
• A lack of well-defined guidelines and a clear structure (Smith
& Tillema, 2003) and a lack of examples of past portfolios
(Darling, 2001), can lead to administrator, teacher, and
student confusion and anxiety about the scope, nature and
value of the task (Darling, 2001).
• Approaches to feedback can sometimes
be inappropriate (Smith & Tillema, 2003)
• Can be difficult to authenticate the
evidence in a portfolio – is it really
the work of the student in question
(Abrami & Barrett, 2005).

23. Literature Review
Challenges
• Challis (2005) raises a number of issues that needs to be
addressed by an institution
– how to manage the volume of data
– who will have access to the electronic
portfolios, the security and privacy of
students’ work
– copyright and intellectual property
concerns

24. Literature Review
Supports
• Identify and provide different tools available to implement electronic
portfolios for both teachers and students
• Provide professional development in electronic portfolio development
knowledge and skills, using either face-to-face or online strategies, to be able
to:
– Capture and store evidence in a variety of multimedia formats and Web 2.0/mobile tools
– Reflect on Learning - “reflection = the heart and soul
of a portfolio”
– Give and receive feedback as part of formative assessment
for learning
– Plan and set goals as a lifelong learning strategy
– Collaborate using Web 2.0 tools
– Present showcase portfolio to an audience
– Evaluate portfolios used for summative assessment
of learning
(Barrett, 2011)

25. Findings
• Ample support systems are in place in PK-12 to
encourage implementation of e-portfolios.
• Spring 2013 findings revealed there were challenges,
but no significant barriers were identified for
implementation.
• Identified challenges could be
addressed to assure successful
implementation of e-portfolios.

26. E-portfolio Implementation
Questions to consider:
• Who is the audience?
• Why are we developing them?
• How will they be used to show evidence of
learning?
• How do you provide students a choice and
voice in selection of artifacts?

27. E-portfolio Implementation
Levels of Implementation (Barrett, 2011)
What is the purpose?
• Level 1: e-portfolio as storage.
• Level 2: e-portfolio as workspace
or process.
• Level 3: e-portfolio as showcase
or product.

28. E-portfolio Implementation
• Selection of Web 2.0 tool aligned with
e-portfolio purpose (Barrett, 2012, January).
• Strategies for reflections that provide insight into
student learning and growth (Barrett & Richer,
2012) may require the development of guiding
questions.
• Assessment opportunities
which offer formative and
summative approaches to
examine in-depth learning
(Barrett, 1999).

30. References
Abrami, P. C., & Barrett, H. (2005). Directions for research and development on
electronic portfolios. Canadian Journal of Learning and Technology, 31(3), 1-15.
Avraamidou, L., & Zembal-Saul, C. (2003). Exploring the Influence of Web-Based Portfolio
Development on Learning to Teach Elementary Science. Journal of Technology and
Teacher Education, 11(3), 415-42.
Barrett, H. (1999). Electronic Portfolios, School Reform and Standards, University of
Alaska Anchorage. Retrieved from
http://electronicportfolios.com/portfolios/PBS2.html
Barrett, H. (2005). Researching electronic portfolios and learner engagement. Retrieved
from http://electronicportfolios.org/reflect/whitepaper.pdf
Barrett, H. (2011). Balancing the two faces of e-portfolios. Retrieved from
http://electronicportfolios.org/balance/balancingarticle2.pdf
Barrett, H. (2011, April ). Eportfolios for learning. Retrieved from
http://blog.helenbarrett.org/2011/04/worldwide-e-portfolio-in-k-12-
community.html
Barrett, H. (2012, January). Google Apps FETC2012. Presentation at Florida Education
Technology Conference, Orlando.
Barrett, H. & Richer, J. (2012). Reflection for learning. Retrieved from
https://sites.google.com/site/reflection4learning/
Barrett, H. & Wilkerson, J. (2004). Conflicting paradigms in electronic portfolio
approaches. Retrieved from http://electronicportfolios.org/systems/paradigms.html

31. References
Barron, A. E., Kemker, K., Harmes, C., & Kalaydjian, K. (2003). Large-scale research study
on technology in K-12 schools: Technology integration as it relates to the National
Technology Standards. Journal of Research on Technology in Education, 35, 489-
507.Berryman, S. E. (1990). Skills, Schools, and Signals. New York, NY: Institute on
Education and the Economy, Teachers College, Columbia University.
Bebell, D., Russell, M., & O'Dwyer, L. (2004). Measuring teachers' technology uses: Why
multiple-measures are more revealing. Journal of Research on Technology in
Education, 37(1), 45-63.
Becker, H. J., & Ravitz, J. (1999). The influence of computer and internet use on teachers'
pedagogical practices and perceptions. Journal of Research on Computing in
Education, 31(4), 356-384.
Bransford, J. D., & Schwartz, D. L. (1999). Rethinking transfer: A simple proposal with
multiple implications. In A. Iran-Nejad & P. D. Pearson (Eds.), Review of Research in
Education, Vol. 24 (pp. 61-100).Washington, DC: American Educational Research
Association.
Butzin, S. M. (1992). Integrating technology into the classroom: Lessons from the project
CHILD experience. Phi Delta Kappan, 330-333.
Challis, D. (2005). Towards the mature ePortfolio: Some implications for higher
education. Canadian Journal of Learning and Technology, 31(3).

32. References
Creswell, J.W. (2012). Educational research: Planning, conducting, and evaluating
quantitative and qualitative research. Boston, MA: Pearson Education, Inc.
Creswell, J. W. & Plano Clark, V. L. (2011). Designing and conducting mixed methods
research. Thousand Oaks, California: Sage Publications, Inc.
Darling, L.F. (2001). Portfolio as practice. The narratives of emerging teachers. Teaching and
Teacher Education, 17(1) , 107-121.
Ertmer, P. A. (2005). Teacher pedagogical beliefs: The final frontier in our quest for
technology integration? Educational Technology Research and Development, 53(4), 25-
39
Lumpe, A. T., & Chambers, E. (2001). Assessing teachers' context beliefs about technology
use. Journal of Research on Technology in Education, 34(1), 93-107.
National Center for Education Statistics (NCES). (2000). Teachers' tools for the 21st
century: A report on teachers' use of technology. Washington, DC: U.S. Government
Printing Office.
Norris, C., Sullivan, T., Poirot, J., & Soloway, E. (2003). No access, no use, no impact:
Snapshot surveys of educational technology in K-12. Journal of Research on Technology
in Education, 36(1), 15-27.
Paulson, F. & Paulson, P. (1994, April). Assessing Portfolios Using the Constructivist
Paradigm. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational
Research Association (New Orleans, LA).
Pierson, M. E. (2001). Technology integration practice as a function of pedagogical expertise.
Journal of Research on Computing in Education, 33(4), 413-430.

33. References
Ringstaff, C., & Kelly, L. (2002). The learning return on our educational technology
investment: A review of findings from research. San Francisco, CA: WestEd RTEC.
U.S. Department of Education (2010). National Educational Technology Plan.
Retrieved from http://www.ed.gov/technology/netp-2010
Sandholtz, J. H., & Reilly, B. (2004). Teachers, not technicians: Rethinking technical
expectations for teachers. Teachers College Record, 106(3), 487-512.
Smith, K,. & Tillema, H. (2003). Clarifying different types of portfolio use. Assessment
and Evaluation in Higher Education, 28(6), 625-648.
Van Melle, E., Cimellaro, L., & Shulha, L. (2003). A dynamic framework to guide the
implementation and evaluation of educational technologies. Education and
Information Technologies, 8(3), 267-285.
Vannatta, R. A., & Fordham, N. (2004). Teacher dispositions as predictors of classroom
technology use. Journal of Research on Technology in Education, 36(3), 253-271.
Van Braak, J. (2001). Individual characteristics influencing teachers' class use of
computers. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 25(2), 141-157.
Van Braak, J., Tondeur, J., & Valcke, M. (2000). Explaining different types of computer use
among primary school teachers. European Journal of Psychology of Education,
19(4), 407-422.
Wozney, L., Venkatesh, V., & Abrami, P. (2006). Implementing computer technologies:
Teachers' perceptions and practices. Journal of Technology and Teacher Education,
14(1), 173-207.

34. Contact Information
Sheryl Abshire, Ph.D.
sheryl.abshire@lamar.edu
Diane Mason, Ph.D.
diane.mason@lamar.edu
Cynthia Cummings, Ed.D.
cdcummings@lamar.edu
Kay Abernathy, Ed.D.
lkayabernathy@lamar.edu
Presentation Location: http://tinyurl.com/n6mcpc4