Digital Portfolios in Smaller Institutions

Willis, L., & Wilkie, L. (2009). Digital career portfolios:  Expanding institutional opportunities.  Journal of Employment Counseling, 46, 73-81.

Digital career portfolios:  Expanding institutional opportunities

In this article, the authors discuss the recent trend that digital portfolios are replacing paper-based resumes, cover letters, and portfolios and the perception that e-portfolios may promote career development.  Digital portfolios allow students to be more creative and transfer their experiences into “interactive, meaningful displays of performance” (74).  Digital portfolios can even link coursework, program goals, and institutional outcomes. 

Some larger universities with well-funded portfolio projects:

• Florida State University (http://www.career.fsu.edu/portfolio/index.html)
• University of California at San Diego (http://career.ucsd.edu/sa/portfolio.shtml)
• Penn State University (http://portfolio.psu.edu/)

This article examines a smaller institution without the funding, administrative support, or technical support available to large-scale projects and discusses how similar institutions can provide the same opportunities to students.

To develop a digital portfolio program for technology support majors, a department committee set goals for “the development of formative and summative portfolio assessment tools, a Web portal and portfolio template, and a plan to help students understand the interconnections between individual courses and the technology support curriculum as a whole” (75). 

The institution created a Web portal with a main page linked to secondary pages to provide an introduction and information on expectations for students during the portfolio development process.  They also developed a template to provide guidance for students and consistency for faculty.  Eleven standards were integrated in the program along with a list of core courses and competencies.  A personal/informational page was also included in the Web portal to address potential employers with video clips and multimedia to display accomplishments.   

Next, the department committee developed a standardized rubric to function as an assessment tool for all student portfolios because they thought a less-structured approach would allow students to express their creativity throughout the process.  Students would receive an updated rubric at each advising session and a summative portfolio evaluation by a faculty panel during their final academic year. 

The project was introduced as a pilot test in a senior seminar class.  It was received favorably by faculty and students.  According to the authors, e-portfolios provided students with “applied, real-world career connections” (78).  The final phase of implementation was introducing the project to incoming freshmen through the initial core course.  Faculty members serve as advisers and upperclassmen serve as peer mentors throughout the digital portfolio development process.

• The authors provide a list of factors to consider for smaller institutions:Space, Storage Cost, and Technical Support
• They used underutilized server space and the technical skills of senior students.  Upon graduation, students transferred their portfolios to CD-ROMs or DVDs to release server space.

• Design Issues and E-Portfolio Creation
• Students need initial training on Web editing, design, and software programs.
• A template should be available to maintain consistency.
• Students need access to multimedia software products.
• Consider open source development initiatives like this one:  University of Minnesota at Duluth (http://eportfolio.d.umn.edu/)

In conclusion, this project discovered that digital portfolios “enhance a student’s understanding of career development guidelines” in the following areas:  personal, educational and career goal assessment; educational achievement and lifelong learning; decision-making processes in career development; and the assessment of academic, occupational, and employability skills (79).

Perceptions of Electronic Employment Portfolios

Temple, V. A., Allan, B., & Temple, W. N. (2003). Employers’ and students’ perceptions of electronic employment portfolios.  Retrieved from http://www.aare.edu.au/03pap/tem03523.pdf

Employers’ and students’ perceptions of electronic employment portfolios

The authors of this article state that there are two types of portfolios:  working portfolios and selection portfolios.  This study focuses on:

1. the strengths, weaknesses, and impediments to the effective use by students of electronic portfolios as a means of systematic reflection and presentation of professional competence
2. prospective employers satisfaction with the structure and content of electronic portfolios as an aid in employment selection processes.

This research is based on quantitative and qualitative data.  Student perceptions were obtained through a questionnaire while employer perceptions were examined during a focus group interview.

While working portfolios may be a complete historical record, selection portfolios are created for a specific purpose.  One such purpose is to document professional accomplishments and competence as part of an employment selection process (3).

As working and selection portfolios contain large amounts of data, creators are increasingly moving to electronic form.  Electronic portfolios have the potential to contain text, graphics, audio, and video elements.  They make it easier to keep and review large amounts of material (Huba & Freed, 2000) and are considered more flexible by enabling artifacts to be integrated in more ways (Heath, 2002).

The students surveyed in this study were part of the Physical Education Action Research (PEAR) group formed in the Division of Exercise Sciences in the School of Medical Sciences at the Royal Melbourne Institute of Technology (RMIT) in December 2001.  The intent of the PEAR project was to enhance the employability of students in the Bachelor of Applied Science in Physical Education program by “identifying discipline specific graduate capabilities, mapping those capabilities within the existing program, identifying areas for renewal, and embedding the identified capabilities into a renewed program” (4).  The aim of the project was to implement a program-wide portfolio system.

Within the system, students developed a working portfolio which was integrated throughout the degree program and several specific portfolios including an employment portfolio.  The employment portfolio could then be presented to prospective employers. 

The employment portfolio addressed five specific dimensions of teaching from the ACHPER Professional Competencies for Beginning Teachers of Secondary Physical Education Years 7-12 framework (ACHPER Victorian Branch Inc., 2001).

• professional responsibilities
• content of teaching and learning
• teaching practice
• assessment and reporting of student learning
• interaction with the school and broader community

The portfolios also contained a written cover letter and curriculum vitae.  They were designed to demonstrate student competence, provide examples, offer reflections, and give a strategic plan for future learning and development.  The electronic portfolio was submitted on a CD-ROM.

The PEAR project sought answers on the following questions about the development of student electronic portfolios:

• What skills/competencies were developed as a result of the use of electronic portfolios by students?
• Were the students, staff and prospective employers satisfied with the structure of the electronic portfolio system?
• What were the strengths and weaknesses of the electronic portfolio?

Methodology
Student Participants
34 final year physical education students enrolled in the Bachelor of Applied Science (Physical Education) at RMIT University

Student Questionnaire
The specific questionnaire for this segment of the project covered five areas related to the development of electronic portfolios during the year.

1. Student’s confidence in using information communications technology prior and after developing their portfolio
2. Usefulness of the learning materials
3. Student’s confidence and skill in preparing applications for employment
4. Perceptions of the links between the assignment and the world of work
5. Recommendations for the process of developing electronic portfolios

At the end of their final semester, students presented their electronic portfolios to staff and other students.  After their presentation, they completed the questionnaire which contained 37 questions.  The majority of questions were closed questions, 25 used a 9-point Likert-type scale, nine questions were designed as 7-point semantic differential scales ranging from Novice to Expert, and three questions were open-ended questions.

Results
After developing an electronic portfolio, students felt “very confident they could successfully address elements of a job application” and they indicated that the process of developing an electronic portfolio contributed significantly to their abilities (6).  Students agreed with questionnaire statements that the “electronic portfolio would enhance their employment prospects.”  In response to an open-ended question asking for any other comments, 25 out of 33 students said the assignment was useful and good preparation for job interviews (7). 

Employer Focus Group Interview
Participants
4 principals or vice-principals
1 representative of the Department of Education and Training 
3 representatives from the Australian Council for Health, Physical Education, and Recreation

Two moderators conducted the 90-minute interview which was tape-recorded and transcribed verbatim.

The purpose of the interview was for stakeholders to offer perspectives on the strengths and weaknesses of electronic portfolios, their satisfaction with the content and structure, and the efficacy of electronic portfolios as employment tools. 

Results
Participants felt there was too much information in the portfolios to use for initial screening of applicants.  It would be preferable if students collected evidence in a working portfolio and then selected relevant examples to meet the selection criteria of a particular school.  They also said that they might be more interested in examining portfolios of applicants already on the short list.

One element of an electronic portfolio of particular interest to participants was evidence of teaching experience via video clips.  The idea of an electronic portfolio was more enticing if they could see something that they could not see on paper. 

Other advice from the focus group included the addition of site maps and hypertext links that changed color.  They also wanted the portfolios available on the web.  Several participants thought it would be helpful to search for prospective employees on a website. 

Research and Development of Electronic Portfolios

Abrami, P.C., & Barrett, H. (2005).  Directions for research and development on electronic portfolios.  Canadian Journal of Learning and Technology, 31(3).  Retrieved from http://www.cjlt.ca/index.php/cjlt/article/viewArticle/92/86

Directions for Research and Development on Electronic Portfolios

Let’s first think about the key questions of this article as listed by the authors:

• What are the types and characteristics of electronic portfolios?
• What are the outcomes and processes that electronic portfolios support for their creators?
• What are the contexts in which electronic portfolios are most effective and worthwhile?
• Who are electronic portfolio users/viewers and how do we provide appropriate professional development to encourage correct adoption and widespread and sustained use?
• What do we know and need to know about technical and administrative issues?
• What is evidence of electronic portfolio success?
• How do we move forward with funding and infrastructure?

Next, I would like to focus on their responses to the questions most relevant to my area of study. 

What are the types and characteristics of electronic portfolios?
To introduce their research, Abrami and Barrett define an electronic portfolio as “a digital container capable of storing visual and auditory content including text, images, video and sound.”  This paper is focused on three broad purposes of electronic portfolios:  process, showcase, and assessment.

The authors view process portfolios as “personal learning management tools” that are intended to encourage or promote “individual improvement, personal growth and development, and a commitment to life-long learning.” 

One example of a process portfolio is found in the five stages identified by the QESN-RÉCIT (2004): (1) collection, (2) selection, (3) reflection, (4) evaluation and (5) celebration.  Try this link for more information:   http://www.qesnrecit.qc.ca/portfolio/port _eng.html.

Showcase portfolios are all about demonstration.  In addition to describing learning outcomes, a showcase portfolio can illustrate them.  Achievements are demonstrated through skills and accomplishments.

The focus of assessment portfolios is evaluation or judgment from an external source.  They may include lifelong or prior learning, personal reflections, and trainings.  Along with virtual demonstrations, assessment portfolios may also contain scoring rubrics, templates, and benchmarks. 

In a broad sense, some may consider electronic portfolios as virtual identities or digital archives.  The the concept of “portfolio for life,” electronic portfolios may include:  health and medical records; financial and tax records; legal documents; work-related, career, and professional activities; the family scrapbook(s) and personal diaries or storybooks; social binders of friends and colleagues; records of hobbies and extracurricular activities.

What are the outcomes and processes supported by electronic portfolios?
Whether created by students, workers, teachers, or managers, portfolios provide documentation for learning and, therefore, the authors consider learning to be the most important use of electronic portfolios.  In turn, they consider the most important research to be about the outcomes and processes supported by electronic portfolios. 

The authors’ thoughts on further research:  “Methodological complications and controversies challenge researchers in this area. First, there is the question about whether a quantitative or qualitative research paradigm is appropriate for answering questions about EP impact. Second, there is the question about the instructional sensitivity of traditional learning measures to EP effects, particularly, among those who argue for EPs as alternative and/or authentic tools for assessment. Finally, there is the question about the strength and pervasiveness of the EP treatment. EPs are not curricular content but tools for learning content.”

Who are electronic portfolio users and viewers?
While this paper focuses on educational purposes and names the viewer of electronic portfolios as teachers, faculty, principals, educational administrators, parents, and peers, it also mentions that users of may be “employers, managers, and others wishing to examine evidence concerning the competencies of a person to undertake a job or the competencies of a person once hired.”

Evidence of success?
The authors examine criteria that could be used to determine the success of electronic portfolios.  The criteria include:

• scalability (the extent of wide use)
• satisfaction (sustainability and long-term maintenance)
• cost versus benefit, worthiness, efficiency, or return on investment
• learning gains and effectiveness (personal enrichment)
• the number of accurate prior learning assessments and successful job placements or advancements