This study examined how participation in an e-portfolio process by Educational Technology Leadership (ETL) master's candidates contributed to implementing e-portfolios with PK-12 students. A survey of ETL graduates found most believed digital portfolios should be used for assessment over paper ones. Analysis of graduate e-portfolios and feedback found e-portfolios were being implemented in PK-12 classrooms using Web 2.0 tools and reflection. The study concluded ETL graduates were helping expand e-portfolio assessment practices in schools through reflective processes and increased use of technology.

1. Lamar University
College of Education
Educational Leadership
Beaumont, TX
Development of an E-Portfolio Process:
Implementation and Use
in PK-12 Schools
Kay Abernathy, Ed.D.
Diane Mason, Ph.D.
Sheryl Abshire, Ph.D.
Cindy Cummings, Ed.D.

2. • Cohort VI - 12 Universities -
United States and Australia
• 3 year studies
• Various e-portfolios, including
those embracing rich media and
social software, which enact
reflection and integration.
• Cohort VI investigating e-
portfolios in a systemic way for
assessment and inquiring into
their effectiveness.

3. Introduction
The use of electronic portfolios, web 2.0
tools, and their transference to PK-12
schools emphasize a process which
engages learners at all levels to take
ownership of their learning.

4. Rationale for Study
• Validation of ETL Graduates e-portfolio process
and transference of ETL candidates’ knowledge
to PK-12 classroom practices.
• Authentic assessment and multiple measures
used beyond standardized testing.

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

6. Theoretical Framework
Helen Barrett
• Developmental process
• Addresses both the diverse and growing
technology competency of the students and
teachers
• Addresses the varied experience with the
portfolio learning and assessment process.

7. Levels of Implementation
• Level 1: e-Portfolio as Storage
• Level 2: e-Portfolio as Workspace
• Level 3: e-Portfolio as Showcase

8. Level 1: e-Portfolio as Storage
• The basic activity is converting student work
into digital formats and saving these
documents in the designated storage space
(not on individual laptops).
• The role of the teacher at this level is to
provide students with guidance on the types
of artifacts to save.

9. Level 2: e-Portfolio as Workspace
• Learner keeps a learning journal (organized
chronologically, with a blog) and reflects on the
learning as represented in the samples of the work.
• Artifacts should represent more than a single
curriculum area.
• Artifacts should demonstrate the many ways that
students are using technology across the curriculum.
• The primary role of the teacher at this level is to
provide formative feedback on the students' work so
that they can recognize opportunities for
improvement.

10. Level 3: e-Portfolio as Showcase
• Requires the student to organize one or more
presentation portfolios around a set of learning
outcomes, goals or standards (depending on
purpose and audience).
• The teacher's role at this level is not only to
provide feedback on the students' work, but also
to validate the students' self-assessment of their
work.

11. e-portfolios PK-12
• Web-based or electronic portfolios (e-
portfolios, ePortfolios, efolios, digital portfolios, etc.) are a
relatively new, but quickly expanding, component of teacher
education programs (Strudler & Wetzel, 2005).
• e-Portfolio templates in teacher education programs range
– highly structured(e.g., foliotek) to those that are
– loosely defined by rubric where students independently
organize and construct format of their own entries using
website design program (e.g., Google Sites).
• Electronic portfolios (ePortfolios) basically operate as a
"content-management system" (Jafari, 2004, p. 40).

12. e-portfolios PK-12
• Chen and Light (2010) observed that ePortfolios allow students to
select a variety of digital artifacts and assemble them in one place
in order to exhibit presentation skills or reflect, inquire, and
analyze material.
• ePortfolios require students to reflect on their learning.
• Richards and Guilbault (2009) contend that reflection has become
an essential way for students to speak in their own voices.
• Critical reflection at strategic points in the development of the
ePortfolio creates a pathway for the formative examination and
demonstration of learning.

13. Web 2.0
• Web 2.0 applications and mobile Internet devices add new issues to
the safety/access situation in schools.
• The Children’s Internet Protection Act (CIPA) is the key federal law
affecting ICT use in PK-12 schools.
• Title II of the Broadband Data Improvement Act, which became Public
Law in 2008, is titled, “Protecting Children in the 21st Century.”
• As the result of serious implications for children engaged in social
networking and Web 2.0 tools, state boards of education have
enacted state requirements for school districts pertaining to
bullying, hazing, and harassment (CoSN, 2010).
• Students use Web 2.0 social networking tools and other authoring
tools regularly; parents may still be in a Web 1.0 world.

14. Web 2.0
• Inherent characteristics of Web 2.0 are so aligned with significant
educational pedagogies we are going to have to dramatically rethink our
educational institutions and expectations because of them.
(Hargadon, 2009)
• Idea of students as authors is not new in education; what is new is scope of
audience to which student authors can write or publish.
• Student authorship not just for teachers or local schools or even school
communities, but the world.
• Students can now maximize the notion of airing their own work both
creatively and academically via Internet tools in blogs or podcasts or even
via social networking tools.
• Additionally, while student work could be displayed for a short while on the
walls of rooms, it can now be captured and displayed without limits via Web
2.0 tools and eportfolios. (Reynard, 2009)

15. Reflection
• Reflection is the "heart and soul" of a portfolio and is
essential to brain-based learning (Kolb, 1984; Zull, 2002).
• Need to develop strategies that better support reflection in
the learning process, supporting different types of reflection
to improve learning.
• Reflection is the hallmark of many thoughtfully developed
portfolios.
• Reflections on the products within a portfolio allow the
audience to understand why these items were chosen to
represent the student and his / her capacities and can provide
some of the best indicators of student growth (Barrett &
Richter, 2012).

16. Assessment
• Assessment portfolios, contain examples of student’s best work, as well as
an explanation of why each work is significant.
• The explanation or reflection discusses how the particular work illustrates
mastery of specific curriculum requirements or learning goals
(Brown, 2011).
• No Child Left Behind (2001) federal legislation changed the focus of
assessment from the PK-12 classroom to statewide standardized testing for
high stakes accountability.
• Renewal of NCLB has not been finalized; there are indications that a
broader definition of assessment will allow multiple measures of
achievement, supporting more formative, classroom-based
assessment, which will make portfolios more popular in PK-12 schools
(Barrett, 2009).

17. Assessment
• The primary role of the teacher is to provide formative
feedback on the students' work so that they can
recognize opportunities for improvement.
• Used in the PK-12 classrooms, portfolios are not so
much an instructional strategy to be researched, but
more of a means to an end: to support reflection that
can help students understand their own learning and
to provide a richer picture of student work that
documents growth over time (Barrett, 2011).

18. Methodology
Mixed Methods Explanatory Sequential Design
Quantitative Data Qualitative Data
Follow up
Collection and Collection and Interpretation
with
Analysis Analysis
-

19. Quantitative Sample
• Distributed survey to 289 ETL graduates.
• 16 not valid email addresses
• 2 opt outs – not PK -12 educators
• Possible respondents - 271
• 110 completed survey – 40.5 % response rate
• Reporting specifically on the e-portfolio data
(Question #13)

20. Quantitative 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.
• Assumption 3: The majority of Educational Technology
Leadership graduates believe PK-12 students in my district
use traditional paper-based portfolios for assessment.

21. Quantitative Assumptions
• Assumption 4: The majority of Educational
Technology Leadership graduates believe PK-12
students in my school use digital portfolios as a
form of assessment.
• Assumption 5: The majority of Educational
Technology Leadership graduates believe PK-12
students in my district use digital portfolios as a
form of assessment.

22. Question #13 - Survey Data
70.0%
(77)
87.2% A & SA
(96)
A & SA
66.3% 15.4%
(73) (17)
A & SA A & SA
23.6%
(6)
A & SA

23. Question #13 - Survey Data
Strongly Agree
4.19
3.66 3.68
2.57
2.32
Strongly Disagree

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

25. Qualitative Data Sample
• We examined 60 graduate e-portfolios representative of
graduates who completed the program during the same
timeframe of the 217 ETL graduates in the survey data pool.
• Graduates’ writing and electronic portfolio components were
analyzed to obtain qualitative data regarding graduates’
viewpoints and perceptions about Web 2.0 tools as a
component of an e-portfolio.
• Conducted feedback sessions via web conferences, panel
discussions, conference calls, and interviews with 50 ETL
graduates from the same timeframe of the 217 ETL graduates in
the survey data pool.

26. Qualitative Data from ETL Graduates’ e-Portfolios
• Candidates integrate Web 2.0 tools (e-portfolios) in the
classroom.
• Candidates are enthusiastic and amazed at the extended
use of Web 2.0 tools (e-portfolios).
• Candidates report implementation of Web 2.0 tools (e-
portfolios) in PK-12 classrooms.
• Candidates implement Web 2.0 tools as a more
purposeful inclusion of technology into PK-12 schools.
• Candidates say cloud-based e-portfolios will house
student products that will follow them from year to year.

27. Feedback Sessions
ETL PK-12 Teacher Graduates report:
• e-portfolios used in a variety of individual and cross curriculum
areas.
• a variety of processes implemented in e-portfolio construction.
• implementation of e-portfolios in various stages of Helen
Barrett’s model.
• allow students to self-select various e-portfolio platforms in
order to construct personal e-portfolios.
• provide evidence of student reflection toward learning goals
within the e-portfolios.
• use of e-portfolios for formal and informal assessment
strategies.

28. Feedback Sessions
ETL PK-12 Teacher Graduates report:
• students share e-portfolios with diverse audiences beyond the
school environment.
• student e-portfolios provide opportunities to inspire student
creativity.
• student e-portfolio construction constantly evolving, not
finite, linear, or static.
• students value the e-portfolio process.
• interaction with various stakeholders to create e-portfolio
implementation policies and procedures.
• incorporate digital ethics for students as part of e-portfolio
processes.
• abundant use of Open Education Resources (OER) for e-portfolio
construction.

29. Qualitative Data Analysis
• Survey data indicated questions
regarding implementation of digital
portfolios vs. paper portfolios for
assessment at the PK-122 school and
district levels.
• Developed qualitative question to guide
coding and categorization of data
gleaned from the ETL Masters’ candidate
e-portfolios and feedback responses.

30. Results
1. Conclusions:
• Graduates of the ETL Master’s program are
contributing to the evolving process of implementing
both informal and formal e-portfolio assessment in PK-
12 schools.
• The growth of Web 2.0 tools contributes to the
implementation of the reflective e-portfolio practices
in PK-12 schools.
• Teachers of PK-12 students are working to increase the
use of e-portfolio assessments.

31. 2. Implications:
• Reflection eportfolio assessment beyond standardizing
testing will continue to grow and give more meaningful and
richer pictures that can help students understand their own
learning and to provide documentation that shows growth
over time as suggested by Barrett.
• The teacher's role at this level is not only to provide
feedback on the students' work, but also to validate the
students' self-assessment of their work as Barrett indicated.
• The use of Web 2.0 tools in the reflective e-portfolio process
add value and reveal a depth of knowledge to the PK-12
student learning.

32. 3. Suggestions for Future Research:
• Researchers may seek more information related to the
increased use of the reflective e-portfolio process in
core curricula areas of PK-12 classrooms.
• Researchers may be interested in use of reflective e-
portfolio practice related to informal assessments
within project- and scenario-based learning
environments.
• Interesting studies on the increased ownership of
students for personal self-assessment could be
beneficial to administrators and classroom teachers.

33. For More Information:
Lamar University
Beaumont, TX
http://lamar.edu/ &
http://tinyurl.com/7wbjugf
& http://stateu.com/lamar/

34. Contact Information
• Kay Abernathy, Ed.D. - lkabernathy@lamar.edu
• Diane Mason, Ph.D. - diane.mason@lamar.edu
• Sheryl Abshire, Ph.D. – sheryl.abshire@lamar.edu
• Cindy Cummings, Ed.D. - cdcummings@lamar.edu