1. The Development, Implementation, and
Use of Eportfolios in PK-12 Schools
Lamar University Research Conference
College of Education
Educational Leadership
March 22, 2013
Presenters:
Diane Mason, Ph.D.
Cindy Cummings, Ed.D.
Sheryl Abshire, Ph.D.
Kay Abernathy, Ed.D.

2. 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 instruction.

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

4. I/NCEPR Cohort VI Participants
• 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

5. Introduction
• An eportfolio 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 eportfolio
construction and use, reflection on learning
and transference, and the use of
e-portfolios for formative assessment.

6. Research Question
How has the participation
of an ETL master’s
candidate in an eportfolio
process contributed to the
implementation of
eportfolio practices
with PK-12 students?

7. 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).

8. 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).

9. Eportfolios in PK-12
Questions to consider for implementation of
electronic portfolios in PK-12:
• What is the meaning of eportfolios?
• Why are we developing them?
• How will they be used to show evidence of
learning?

10. Eportfolios in PK-12
Levels of Implementation (Barrett, 2011)
• Level 1: eportfolio as storage.
• Level 2: eportfolio as workspace or process.
• Level 3: eportfolio as showcase or product.

11. Eportfolios in PK-12
Other Implementation Considerations
• Selection of Web 2.0 tool aligned with
eportfolio purpose (Barrett, 2012, January).
• Strategies for reflections that provide insight
into student learning and growth (Barrett &
Richer, 2012).
• Assessment opportunities which offer
formative and summative approaches to
examine in-depth learning (Barrett, 1999).

12. Methodology
Explanatory Sequential Design
Quantitative Data Qualitative Data
Follow up
Collection and Collection and Interpretation
with
Analysis Analysis
• 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).

13. Assumptions
• Assumption 1: The majority of Educational Technology
Leadership graduates believe PK-12 students should
use digital portfolios for assessment.
• Assumption 2: The majority of Educational Technology
Leadership graduates believe PK-12 students in my
school use traditional paper-based portfolios for
assessment.

14. Assumptions
• Assumption 3: The majority of Educational Technology
Leadership graduates believe PK-12 students in my
district use traditional paper-based portfolios for
assessment.
• Assumption 4: The majority of Educational Technology
Leadership graduates believe PK-12 students in my
school use digital portfolios as a form of assessment.

15. Assumptions
• Assumption 5: The majority of Educational Technology
Leadership graduates believe PK-12 students in my
district use digital portfolios as a form of assessment.

16. 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.

17. Participants
• Distributed survey to 289 ETL graduates.
– 16 invalid email addresses
– 2 opted out (not PK -12 educators)
• 271 possible respondents
– 110 completed survey
– 41 % response rate
• Data reflects responses to the eportfolio survey
items.

18. Delimitations and Limitations
• Survey data collected only through SurveyMonkey™
• University email addresses used
• Participants employed in PK-12 settings
• Limited 2-week timeframe to collect data
• Voluntary and anonymous participation
• Unfamiliarity with online surveys
• Program completers
• Potential researcher bias

19. Quantitative Results
Table 1
Summary based upon Likert Scales for Assumptions 1, 4, and 5
Digital Portfolios for Assessment
Believe School Use District Use
Counts Percent Count Percent Count Percent
Strongly Disagree 1 .9% 20 18.2% 19 17.3%
Disagree 1 .9% 48 43.6% 37 33.6%
Not Sure 12 10.9% 16 14.5% 25 22.7%
Agree 58 62.7% 15 13.6% 23 20.9%
Strongly Agree 38 34.5% 2 1.8% 3 2.7%
N/A 0 0% 9 8.2% 3 2.7%

20. Quantitative Results
Table 2
Summary based upon Likert Scales for Assumptions 2 and 3
Paper-Based Portfolios for Assessment
School Use District Use
Counts Percent Counts Percent
Strongly Disagree 5 4.5% 3 2.7%
Disagree 12 10.9% 14 12.7%
Not Sure 12 10.9% 14 12.7%
Agree 57 51.8% 61 55.6%
Strongly Agree 16 14.5% 16 14.5%
N/A 8 7.4% 2 1.8%

21. Qualitative
Sub-Research Question
How has the ETL Master’s graduates’ knowledge of
e-portfolio assessment supported the
implementation of digital portfolios with PK-12
students?

22. Qualitative
EPortfolio Analysis
• Examination of 60 eportfolios 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

23. Web 2.0 Tools
Evidence from Candidate EPortfolios
• “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” (Eportfolio 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” (Eportfolio 2).

24. Reflection
Evidence from Candidate EPortfolios
• 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” (EPortfolio 3).
• The graduates stated that reflection was often used by
their PK-12 students to explain their learning through e-
portfolio development.

25. Assessment
Evidence from Candidate EPortfolios
• 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” (EPortfolio 4).
• “Electronic portfolios…will follow them from year to year.
Students will be able to communicate beyond borders, and
learn without limits” (EPortfolio 5).

26. Qualitative
Feedback Analysis
• Examined open-ended responses from 10 ETL
graduate participants regarding early implementation
of eportfolios.
• Conducted synchronous and asynchronous feedback
sessions to explore the sub-research question
regarding early implementation.

27. Discussion
• The study population supported the use of digital portfolios
for formative assessment and reflection in PK-12
classrooms.
• There was evidence of Barrett’s (2005) identified stages of
implementation and barriers.
• Candidate reflections revealed how their past experiences
with Web 2.0 tools, reflections, and eportfolio artifacts were
transferred in PK-12 classrooms as described by Bransford
and Schwartz (1999).

28. 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.

29. References
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. (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

30. References
Berryman, S. E. (1990). Skills, Schools, and Signals. New York, NY: Institute on Education
and the Economy, Teachers College, Columbia University.
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.
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.
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).
U.S. Department of Education (2010). National Educational Technology Plan. Retrieved
from http://www.ed.gov/technology/netp-2010

31. Contact Information
Diane Mason, Ph.D. Cynthia Cummings, Ed.D.
diane.mason@lamar.edu cdcummings@lamar.edu
Sheryl Abshire, Ph.D. Kay Abernathy, Ed.D.
sheryl.abshire@lamar.edu lkayabernathy@lamar.edu

32. Presentation in Slideshare:
http://tinyurl.com/czxevq2