Adopting an Electronic Portfolio System: Key Considerations for Decision Makers

The use of electronic portfolios for authentic student assessment is growing rapidly (Batson, 2002). Creating portfolios electronically offers a number of benefits not available using traditional paper-based portfolios. Advantages include the portability from one application or institution to another, wider accessibility of the portfolio, and the reusability of artifacts in different contexts and to create multiple portfolios. The two broad approaches to eportfolio implementation have advantages and disadvantages. Some experts advocate using generic tools (e.g., word processors, HTML editors, portable document format) to create eportfolios. Advantages to this approach include flexibility for portfolio authors to customize their portfolio to reflect their individuality and portability from one system to another. Start-up cost may also be low using this approach. However, generic tools carry disadvantages. Authors unskilled with the tools may suffer cognitive overload, producing lower quality portfolio content as they struggle to use the tools. Second, it is hard to aggregate data from portfolios created using generic tools. Finally, securing the contents of the electronic portfolios may be difficult if they are to be accessible from Internet-connected computers. Alternatives to the traditional generic tools are specialized electronic portfolio systems. These take advantage of computer databases, servers, interfaces, and custom programming. Advantages of such systems include more powerful data aggregation to satisfy accountability mandates, simplified security procedures, increased opportunities to create multiple portfolios for diverse purposes, computer-mediated communication between portfolio authors and their advisers, and a less steep learning curve for the portfolio author. However, disadvantages are evident. The portfolio author’s ability for self-expression is limited. Some customized systems are expensive to implement and maintain. Proprietary structures and file formats may limit portfolio portability. Many customized eportfolio systems can be integrated with existing student information systems and course management systems. An advantage of tightly integrated systems is the ability to repurpose existing information and artifacts for use in portfolios. However, t ightly coupled systems such as these require security to prevent unauthorized access to private personal data. Selecting an eportfolio system requires rigorous attention to pedagogical and technological considerations. Pedagogical considerations include the level of users' technical skills, user access to technology, staff development needs, curricular standards to be met, the level of creativity desired, access to student reflections, and data aggregation needs. Additional pedagogical concerns are illustrated in the top half of Figure 1. Technological considerations are equally complex, including budgets for hardware, software, and technical support, the capacity of the institution’s infrastructure, system scalability, usability issues including plug-ins and utilities, authentication systems, required technical standards (e.g., ODBCand SCORM compliance) and ongoing system maintenance. Additional technological concerns are illustrated in the bottom half of Figure 1. As technological and pedagogical considerations are addressed, a set of requirements will emerge. The requirements and preference decisions, along with the results of usability testing, should guide selection of an electronic portfolio system. This paper addresses many of these decisions in detail, describes selected electronic portfolio systems, and identifies additional eportfolio resources.