Volume 55, Number 5 TechTrends September/October 2011 31

Rethinking Electronic Portfolios

to Promote Sustainability
among Teachers
By Craig E. Shepherd and Stan Skrabut
University of Wyoming
Abstract
Electronic portfolios (eportfolios) can increase
refection, develop content and pedagogy skills
and facilitate communication between teachers
and administrators. However, they have limita-
tions. Despite resources that teacher institutions
devote to eportfolios, research suggests that most
implementations are of limited duration. In a cli-
mate where sustained professional development
and lifelong learning are necessary to remain
competitive, organizations should reevaluate
how eportfolios are implemented to sustain use
and maintain skills deemed important by teach-
ing organizations. Using principles of change
theory, this article identifes several eportfo-
lio challenges and how they may be improved
through principles of personal learning environ-
ments. Implementation procedures and limita-
tions are also provided.
Keywords: Electronic portfolio, personal
learning environment, lifelong learning, Web 2.0
eacher education programs have lauded
portfolios for their ability to enhance re-
fection, promote personal inquiry, and
document holistic teaching practice (Shepherd &
Hannafn, 2009; Strudler & Wetzel, 2005). Land
and Zembal-Saul (2003) found that eportfolios
helped preservice teachers to document and ex-
plore principles of light. Storing and analyzing
previous work helped participants to consider
prior discoveries while conducting new experi-
ments. Novice teachers also use portfolios for
T
mentoring purposes (Kelley, 2004; Orland-
Barak, 2005). Such experiences help both nov-
ice and mentor teachers to recognize instances
of best practice, refect more deeply on their
teaching, and gain confdence in their abilities
(Robinson, 2005). Experienced teachers create
portfolios to document achievements and ob-
tain advanced certifcations (Burroughs, 2001;
NBPTS, 2010).
Because teacher portfolios promote inquiry
and refection and are represented during sev-
eral career milestones, they are touted for their
ability to promote lifelong learning (Anderson
& Frieson, 2004; Brown, 2002). Lifelong learn-
ing encompasses formal and informal experi-
ences that enhance personal and professional
knowledge over time (Heinrich, Bhattacharya,
& Rayudu, 2007; McAllister, Hallam, & Harper,
2008). Many learners integrate formal learning
with informal experiences to enhance personal
knowledge (Wheeler & Yeats, 2009). Teach-
ers readily incorporate advice heard among
colleagues with teaching strategies learned
in professional settings to construct personal
teaching approaches. Lifelong learning repre-
sents personal and professional gains that span
across experiences (Hartnell-Young, Small-
wood, Kingston, & Harley, 2006; McAllister et
al., 2008).
Anderson and Frieson (2004) claim that
eportfolios facilitate lifelong learning because
they help to capture, manage and examine ex-
perience. Tey also suggest that learners must
be encouraged to use eportfolio tools across
32 TechTrends September/October 2011 Volume 55, Number 5
life activities in order for them to be efective.
Indeed, research suggests that when users de-
velop eportfolios over time, learning gains are
achieved. Cambridge (2008) found that us-
ers of Minnesotas eFolio system (given to all
state residents) ofen began with little plan-
ning or purpose in mind. However, sustained
use led to purposeful entries that documented
development, educational planning and job
performance. Brown (2002) found that when
adults used portfolios to examine workplace
and community learning, they enhanced per-
sonal communication, organization skills and
self-knowledge.
Despite reported benefts, limitations ex-
ist. Research suggests that eportfolio develop-
ment is quickly rejected following teacher mile-
stones (Shepherd & Hannafn, 2008; Cambridge,
2008). Tese rejections may occur because cer-
tain practices inhibit holistic teacher represen-
tation, support structures are not continued
between career milestones, and entries require
extensive time to develop and maintain (Borko,
Michalec, Timmons, & Siddle, 1997; Fallon &
Watts, 2001; Hadley, 2007). Given the current
speculation surrounding eportfolios to facilitate
teachers lifelong learning, additional consid-
erations are needed regarding their implemen-
tation. Using principles of change theory, this
article examines current limitations in eport-
folio practices and considers how incorporat-
ing learner-centered and open-ended principles
from personal learning environments might
reduce these challenges.
Eportfolio Limitations
Although researchers laud teacher eportfo-
lios for their ability to promote refection, skills
development, and inquiry, few studies exam-
ine implementation across teaching milestones
(e.g., preservice education, induction, school
or grade-level changes, advanced certifcation,
retirement). Eportfolios track progress during
undergraduate experiences, induction programs
and National Board certifcations but are rarely
followed afer these purposes are met (Milman,
2009; Rolheiser & Schwartz, 2001).
Research focusing on eportfolio retention
suggests that teachers quickly abandon practices
following career milestones (Grant & Huebner,
1998; Rolheiser & Schwartz, 2001). Shepherd
and Hannafn (2008) found that while preser-
vice teachers identifed eportfolio benefts to
consider alternative view-points, refect deeply
on teaching experiences and promote goal for-
mation and attainment, they did not anticipate
using them in employment situations because
of time constraints, lack of incentives and con-
ficting institutional interests. Milman (2009)
reached similar conclusions afer examining the
eportfolios of 20 inservice teachers. Although
they developed eportfolios during preservice ex-
periences and retained positive attitudes regard-
ing their use, only one continued to update her
eportfolio. Others mentioned lack of time, con-
fdence and support as detractors to continued
development.
Even when education programs and em-
ployers jointly espouse eportfolio practices,
previous work may be incompatible with new
guidelines. Although two teachers were re-
quired to keep portfolios for state licensure,
Milman (2009) found that diferences in guide-
lines raised questions regarding compatibility.
Teacher preparation programs ofen use pro-
prietary systems to store, retrieve and assess
teacher eportfolios for accreditation purposes
(e.g., LiveText, TaskStream, TK20) that are
not supported in neighboring school systems
(Shepherd & Hannafn, 2008; Reis & Villaume,
2002). Other systems may store and retrieve
data but fail to export it if abandonedrequir-
ing teachers to recreate entries if tools are un-
supported in employment situations.
Certain guidelines may also impede per-
ceived ownership of eportfolio practices. Borko
et al. (1997) found that portfolio mandates led
some teachers to question their self-representa-
tion in portfolio entries. Tey argued that stan-
dardized layouts and assignments resulted in
work that documented teacher education norms
rather than personal traits. Reis and Villaume
(2002) argued that when eportfolios become
assessment systems for program accreditation,
formative assessment, teacher inquiry, and per-
sonal representation sufer. Cambridge (2008)
stated that eportfolios are only successful when
they retain complete representations of their
creator, maintain a level of professionalism and
can adapt to multiple situations and audiences.
Change Theory and Eportfolios
Although the teaching profession adopted
portfolios in the 1980s, they ofen represent
novel experiences for teachers (Burroughs,
2001; Strudler & Wetzel, 2005). Bolliger and
Shepherd (2010) found that 31 of 40 graduate
education students had never created portfolios.
Te National Board for Professional Teaching
Standards incorporates mock portfolio exercis-
es to help teachers become familiar with them
prior to attempting certifcation (NBPTS, 2010).
Change theory describes how elements of ideas,
procedures, and tools afect their adoption. Be-
Volume 55, Number 5 TechTrends September/October 2011 33
cause eportfolios are ofen viewed as novel tools,
change theory may explain their apparent rejec-
tion following career milestones.
According to Rogers (2003, p. 12) innova-
tions are ideas or practices perceived as new.
Several variables infuence innovation adoption,
including social variables, compatibility with ex-
isting beliefs and practices, complexity and rela-
tive advantage.
Social variables
Social variables play an important role in
whether innovations are adopted or rejected.
Te degree to which target audiences consider
and attempt new ideas and procedures directly
infuences their willingness to adopt them (Rog-
ers, 2003). Based on the profusion of eportfolio
practices spanning the teaching career, it appears
that eportfolios are accepted assessments (Hein-
rich et al., 2007; Orland-Barak, 2005; Strudler
& Wetzel, 2005). Hundreds of primers describe
approaches, provide implementation and as-
sessment guidance and act as communication
channels to publish results. Tese communica-
tion channels, opened by eportfolio advocates
to promote holistic assessment and profession-
al development help the innovation to difuse
among education programs (Rogers, 2003).
Institutions can easily obtain these primers,
receive implementation advice, and share their
own experiences through professional publica-
tions, conferences, and word of mouth. Tus,
social variables seem to favor eportfolios among
teaching institutions. Yet, existing communica-
tion channels appear to be unidirectional. In-
stitutions publish fndings about their practices
but do not seek to align them between proxi-
mate organizations through common purposes,
objectives and tools (Milman 2009; Rolheiser
& Schwartz, 2001; Shepherd & Hannfn, 2008).
Tus, social norms within specifc teacher orga-
nizations rarely transfer to other settings. Tis
lack of transfer afects eportfolio sustainability.
Perceived Innovation Attributes
If teaching institutions do not mandate ep-
ortfolio practices, sustained adoption is depen-
dant on perceived innovation attributes. Tese
attributes include their compatibility with ex-
isting expectations and norms, complexity of
selected tools and their relative advantage to ex-
isting and alternative practices. Rogers, (2003, p.
221) indicated these attributes account for 49-
87% of adoption rate variance.
Compatibility. Innovations are more readily
adopted when they are compatible with existing
norms and beliefs (Rogers, 2003). Many teaching
education programs incorporate eportfolios to
foster refection and facilitate program accredi-
tation. Tese purposes align with institutional
goals and objectives. Course instruction is of-
ten devoted to foster inquiry and refection and
graduation requirements may contain eport-
folio elements. Standardized systems, layouts,
assignments and templates help preservice
teachers to develop these skills (Land & Zem-
bal-Saul, 2003; Shepherd & Hannafn, 2009;
Zeichner & Wray, 2001). In these situations,
eportfolio tasks align with institutional norms.
When individuals leave these institutions
however, compatibility may change. Burroughs
(2001) argued that refec-
tive writing is not sup-
ported in most schools.
Teachers are given limited
planning time that im-
pedes their ability to col-
lect and examine artifacts
for professional develop-
ment. Tus, Burroughs
questioned whether NB-
PTS portfolios represent
teacher quality or their
ability to writesomething he claimed was
not supported in current practice. Preservice
teachers seeking employment expressed simi-
lar concerns (Shepherd & Hannafn, 2008).
When talking about their eportfolios with ex-
perienced teachers, they were told that no one
supports, examines, or continues them follow-
ing graduation. Despite portfolio practices tied
to national teacher promotions, local school
districts did not advocate their use. Eportfolios
were not compatible with institutional norms.
Standardized eportfolios for assessment
and accreditation purposes may also hinder
compatibility. If teachers perceive purposes to
represent institutional rather than personal ob-
jectives, they become assignments to complete
rather than tools for development (Borko et al.,
1997; Delandshere & Arens, 2003). Tools, lay-
outs and embedded prompts may also cause
compatibility problems between teaching insti-
tutions. Because neighboring programs rarely
interact with each other to develop policies and
procedures, incompatible practices, formats
and organization structures may result. When
teachers transition to new institutions, they may
encounter limitations in what they can bring.
Tese problems are compounded by changing
goals, circumstances and attitudes of lifelong
learners. Tools that efectively managed life ex-
periences at one time may be unsupported or
inefective at another. In order for eportfolios
to be efective for lifelong learning, they must
accommodate new uses (Rogers, 2003, p. 180).
Storing and analyzing
previous work helped
participants to con-
sider prior discoveries
while conducting new
experiments.
34 TechTrends September/October 2011 Volume 55, Number 5
Although eportfolios meet individual program
goals, greater alignment with teacher needs and
practices is required for sustained use.
Complexity. Innovation complexity also
infuences adoption. People adopt innovations
that are simple to use and maintain (Rogers,
2003). Shepherd and Han-
nafn (in press) and Bolliger
and Shepherd (2010) found
that when eportfolio tools
function like familiar appli-
cations (e.g., word proces-
sors, e-mail applications,
web browsers), educators
experience few difcul-
ties using them. However,
when preservice teachers
use unfamiliar tools, they tax learners abilities
to complete tasksnecessitating increased sup-
port and decreasing desires for future use (Shep-
herd & Hannafn, 2008). Currently, hundreds
of proprietary and open-source systems exist.
Because teachers vary in technology expertise,
systems that appear easy for some may be dif-
fcult for others. To increase compatibility and
ease of use, Rogers (2003) argued that people
should observe and try tools prior to adop-
tion. Most eportfolio research mandates tools,
artifacts and presentation formats with limited
user input (e.g., Shepherd & Hannafn, in press;
Land & Zembal-Saul, 2003). When individuals
observe examples, they can better identify ben-
efts and limitations and select tools that meet
their needs.
Relative advantage. Individuals are more
likely to adopt innovations that beneft current
practice (Rogers, 2003). Teachers recognize ep-
ortfolio benefts. Preservice teachers stated that
eportfolios facilitated personal inquiry, techno-
logical skills acquisition and refection (Shep-
herd & Hannafn, 2009; Hadley, 2007). Inser-
vice teachers identifed mentoring benefts to
recognize best practices and refect on planning
and implementation strategies (Orland-Barak,
2005; Robinson, 2005). However, beneft iden-
tifcation difers from perceptions of relative
advantage. According to Rogers (2003, p. 229)
relative advantage is the degree to which an in-
novation is perceived as being better than the
idea it supersedes. Teachers are rarely required
to develop eportfolios once hired (Shepherd
& Hannafn, 2008; Milman, 2009; Rolheiser &
Schwartz, 2001). Given the time constraints as-
sociated with development and review, adding
an unsupported task may fail to provide a rela-
tive advantage regardless of identifed benefts
to practice. Without incentives for continued
use, teachers may focus on other demands.
Based on change theory principles, it ap-
pears that more emphasis is needed on individ-
ual uses that span across teacher institutions. In-
stitutional goals (whether promoting refection,
inquiry, technology skills, program accredita-
tion, mentoring facilitation, or advanced certif-
cation) ofen espouse eportfolio tasks of limited
scope and duration (Cambridge, 2008). Because
eportfolios focused on lifelong learning become
professional development tools for individual
teachers as opposed to teaching institutions, re-
searchers should consider teacher needs, transi-
tion points, and developmental trajectories as
they plan implementations. Eportfolios must be-
come personal as well as institutional tools. Not
only should they meet institutional goals, they
should also meet individual needsbecoming
what Cambridge (2008) argued as adaptable to
multiple audiences.
Eportfolios and Personal Learning
Environments
To help eportfolios become tools for lifelong
learning, advocates should examine open-end-
ed, personal learning environments (PLEs) as a
means to extend individual considerations into
eportfolio tasks. PLEs include one or more web-
based tools that allow users to gather, organize,
process and communicate learning resources
with others (Van Harmelen, 2008; Waters, 2008).
Because PLEs are individually constructed using
myriad resources, they are individually unique
(Severance, Hardin, & Whyte, 2008; Wilson,
2008). Learners control aspects including tool
selection, content organization, aggregation
methods and dissemination processes. PLEs
also allow users to aggregate diverse resources,
including RSS feeds, personal documents, blogs,
web applications, widgets, work samples, and
video recordings (see Figure 1). Te ability to
select varied, Internet-based resources may fos-
ter self-directed, portable learning (Van Harmel-
en, 2008).
Because PLEs are open-ended, learner-
generated systems that rely on Internet-based
resources, they may be more compatible with
teachers changing needs than traditional ep-
ortfolios. Teachers are familiar with many
web-based systems that can be tied to PLEs
(e.g, social media, blogging, email). Using these
systems for eportfolio purposes may promote
sustainability (see http://www.netvibes.com/
skrabut#Distance_Education for an example).
PLEs may also provide greater fexibility than
traditional eportfolios because users can aggre-
gate or remove web tools based on situational
need.
research suggests
that when users de-
velop eportfolios over
time, learning gains
are achieved.
Volume 55, Number 5 TechTrends September/October 2011 35
Social Supports
Unlike many eportfolios, PLEs include re-
sources that extend beyond academic and pro-
fessional circles. Professional tools and resources
are interspersed with personal and recreational
tools. For example, PLEs can aggregate externally
generated resources (e.g., blogs, newsfeeds, jour-
nal articles) with personal and professional tools
(e.g., e-mail clients, productivity tools, wikis,
websites). Tese combinations extend the scope
and community of PLE uses. Tus, PLEs may
generate, collect and disseminate artifacts related
to personal and professional growth while simul-
taneously fostering community through e-mail,
blog, wiki, and social media interactions.
Aggregating communication, productivity,
research, and document creation tools within
eportfolios may also bolster their scope of use,
open communication channels for personal and
professional development activities, and facili-
tate sustainability. Using RSS aggregators to col-
lect research on technology integration in math-
ematics, for example, provides learning chan-
nels to explore that topic in eportfolio systems.
Rather than use diferent computer applications
for seemingly disparate teaching purposes, these
resources can be aggregated in individual eport-
folios. Furthermore, these articles may inform
classroom planning and can act as artifacts to ar-
ticulate plans. E-mail, twitter, and chat messages
between mentor teachers and colleagues may
also inform planning activities and open com-
munication channels in eportfolio systems.
Aggregated creation tools (e.g., wikis, blogs,
online ofce applications) can then be used to
develop and disseminate lesson plans, collect
implementation artifacts, and refect on those
implementations. Tese same tools may foster
personal communications. RSS aggregators
can collect information on gardening, video
games, or sports teams. E-mail and instant
messaging services can contact family and
friends. Wikis and blogs may highlight fow-
ers or vegetables grown.
Including tools for personal and profes-
sional interactions may increase communica-
tion channels that extend beyond institutional
boundaries. When career
transfers place teachers in
new situations, prior tools
and channels remain in-
tact and available. Teach-
ers may continue to com-
municate ideas, lessons,
and strategies between for-
mer colleagues. Tey may
also extend these channels
to include new colleagues.
Aggregating various tools
as eportfolio components
may also facilitate their
alignment with previously disparate ideas and
communities (Johnson & Liber, 2008; Waters,
2008). Blogs and communications about per-
Figure 1. A few tools aggregated in a personal learning environment housed on iGoogle.
Even when education
programs and employ-
ers jointly espouse
eportfolio practices,
previous work may
be incompatible with
new guidelines.
36 TechTrends September/October 2011 Volume 55, Number 5
sonal gardening may foster ideas for science les-
sons on photosynthesis, soil composition, plant
life-cycles, and so forthblurring the line be-
tween personal and professional networks and
increasing the scope of eportfolio processes. Ex-
tended communication channels from seeming-
ly dissimilar networks may facilitate innovation
dissemination and promote sustained adoption
(Rogers, 2003).
Innovation Attributes
Aggregating multiple resources into com-
mon systems may also increase individual com-
patibility. Because people use technologies to
locate information, generate and create content
and communicate with peers, merging these
technologies promotes sustainability by ad-
dressing multiple needs. Teachers commonly
use technologies like e-mail
and word processing sof-
ware for professional and
personal activities (demon-
strating compatibility with
existing norms and pro-
cedures). Because of their
widespread adoption and
minimal training require-
ments, large corporations
like Google, Microsof,
and FaceBook bundle new
applications with adopted
tools to expand technol-
ogy uses. Gmail, for example, provides links to
Google Docs, Calendars, and other resources.
Facebook unveiled an email client within their
social networking site. As users complete rou-
tine tasks within these systems, they are more
likely to notice new features, try them and adopt
the innovation. Rogers (2003, p. 153) referred
to these aggregations as technology clusters or
innovation packages. Clustering multiple, inter-
related technologies may facilitate eportfolio
adoption by increasing visibility and opportuni-
ties for use.
Aggregating eportfolio, communication, re-
search and content generation tools may remind
individuals of eportfolio benefts as they interact
with other tools and promote further use.
Cautions
Despite potential advantages, implement-
ing learner-selected, multi-tooled eportfolios
presents challenges to learners and institutions.
Tese include resource overload, assessment dif-
fculty, complicated systems integration and pri-
vacy and professional concerns.
Resource Overload
One challenge with PLE-based eportfolios
stems from the quantity of available tools. Given
the number of open-source and proprietary ap-
plications, it may be difcult to trouble-shoot
implementations in academic settings (Dron
& Bhattacharya, 2007). When locating tools
to meet particular requirements (e.g., voice or
video recording, image collection, presentation
creation), quantity, varying feature sets and price
options may overwhelm learners. Additionally,
learners may be unaware that tools exist for par-
ticular tasksrequiring assistance from others.
If teachers and learners do not perceive them-
selves as technically savvy, this information
may be overwhelming (Shepherd & Hannafn,
in press; Dron & Bhattacharya, 2007). Te na-
ture of Web 2.0 tools may further complications.
Because new tools are regularly created and re-
moved, anxiety about reliability and longevity
may result.
Assessment and System Integration
Typical eportfolio assessments focus on in-
dividuals. By opening eportfolios into commu-
nities of formal and informal learning networks,
processes become more collaborative (Elliott,
2008). Groups may generate, collect and exam-
ine artifacts in ways that make ownership as-
sumptions difcult. Integrating learner-selected
eportfolios with institutional assessment systems
may also be problematic. When learners control
the tools, organization and content included in
eportfolios, standardization is lost and assess-
ment duration may increase. Several teacher ed-
ucation programs use eportfolios for accredita-
tion purposes (Dhonau & McAlpine, 2005; Gat-
lin & Jacob, 2002). In the process of personal-
izing eportfolios for sustainability, institutional
goals and objectives may be compromised. Dron
and Bhattacharya (2007) claim that open-ended
learning systems ofen run at odds with closely
controlled institutional systems. Management
issues like access, bandwidth requirements and
aggregation abilities become more complicated
(Van Harmelen, 2008; Zeichner & Wray, 2001).
Privacy
Blending personal and professional goals
may sustain eportfolio use, but it blurs the line
between professionalism and privacy. Teachers
may not want to combine personal and academic
content (Elliott, 2008). Although many teachers
have social media accounts, they rarely integrate
them into professional settings. Teachers are
viewed as community role models and must be
careful in disclosing personal information (Ses-
sums, 2007). Privacy concerns not only afect
Because eportfolios
are ofen viewed as
novel tools, change
theory may explain
their apparent
rejection following
career milestones.
Volume 55, Number 5 TechTrends September/October 2011 37
teachers but also students. Federal laws regulate
what student information can be shared without
obtaining permission. Although eportfolio and
Web 2.0 systems provide security features to lim-
it access to site-based content, the community
nature of these services may complicate privacy
issues. Maintaining personal information along-
side assessment-oriented eportfolios requires in-
creased vigilance in policing web-presentation.
Recommendations
Although challenges exist with PLE-based
eportfolios, they are not insurmountable. Be-
ginning with a smaller, reliable subset of tools,
instructing faculty on appropriate Internet pres-
ence, tacking security issues through information
technology supports and designing collaborative
eportfolio activities may alleviate challenges. Be-
low is a list of suggestions to implement student-
centered, resource aggregated eportfolios for
sustainability purposes.
Tool Selection
Review eportfolio goals and objectives to de-
termine if open-source tools will meet them.
Begin eportfolio development with a small
subset of reliable, low cost, Internet tools that
allow mentors to support required tasks and
calm anxious users. Limiting initial tools pro-
vides greater control over design and organi-
zational processes allowing educators to more
easily locate activities for assessment and re-
view.
Select tools from reliable companies (e.g., Sun,
Microsof, Google). Tis minimizes the poten-
tial for unsustainable practice, data loss and
frustration.
Work with the institutions information tech-
nology department to allow permissions and
bandwidth necessary for selected tools.
Training
To reduce privacy concerns (and better estab-
lish personal and professional boundaries),
teach learners how to secure personal infor-
mation and manage online profles.
Demonstrate how common tools such as
blogs, wikis, photo and video galleries can be
used to support eportfolios and lifelong learn-
ing.
Encourage practices that merge academic,
professional, and personal learning explora-
tion.
Rubric and Template Development
Develop eportfolio examples that use multiple
tools for students to examine and mirror.
Develop guidelines explaining what depart-
ments and institutions will evaluate. Develop
rubrics to help teachers identify strong ep-
ortfolio components.
Recognize best practices whether they di-
rectly support eportfolio assessment or not.
Reinforcing positive behavior increased the
likelihood for sustainability.
Collaboration
Collaborate with neighboring institutions to
identify teacher expectations and how eport-
folios might support these.
Promote tools and activities that support col-
laboration.
Look for tools that retain change histories so
assessors can determine how contributors
shaped activities.
Encourage learners to create content that can
be shared publicly. Tis encourages them to
consider copyright and school policies while
promoting public communication.
Teacher organizations have used eportfo-
lios for decades to promote technological skills,
self-assessment, refection and professional de-
velopment. To facilitate sustainability and life-
long learning, eportfolios should accommodate
increased personalization. Although these ap-
proaches may complicate assessment, by start-
ing small, using reliable tools, increasing edu-
cation on web presence and developing collab-
orative artifact assignments, eportfolio eforts
for sustained growth may increase. Additional
research regarding the feasibility of these prac-
tices in multiple stages of teacher development
is needed. While researchers indicate that ep-
ortfolios may hold the key to lifelong learning
and inquiry (Anderson & Friesen, 2004; Hein-
rich et al., 2007) more research is needed about
how to increase their sustainability.
Craig Shepherd (cshephe6@uwyo.edu) is an assistant pro-
fessor of instructional technology at the University of Wyo-
ming. His research interests focus on the use of technology
to facilitate learner-centered informal and formal learning.
He is particularly interested in electronic portfolios and how
they infuence the documentation, management, progres-
sion, and presentation of learning over time.

Stan Skrabut (skrabut@uwyo.edu) is an Instructional
Technology Educational Specialist for the University of Wy-
oming, College of Agriculture, Cooperative Extension Ser-
vice. He has over 16 years experience working as an instruc-
tional technologist and trainer. He has a masters degree in
computing technology in education and is currently working
on a doctorate in education.
References
Anderson, T., & Friesen, N. (2004). Interaction for life-
long learning. British Journal of Educational Technol-
ogy, 35, 679-687.
38 TechTrends September/October 2011 Volume 55, Number 5
Bolliger, D. U., & Shepherd, C. E. (2010). Student per-
ceptions of electronic portfolio integration in online
courses. Distance Education, 31(3), 295-314.
Borko, H., Michalec, P., Timmons, M., & Siddle, J. (1997).
Student teaching portfolios: A tool for promoting
refective practice. Journal of Teacher Education, 48,
345-357.
Burroughs, R. (2001). Composing standards and compos-
ing teachers the problem of national board certifca-
tion. Journal of Teacher Education, 52, 223-232.
Cambridge, D. (2008). Audience, integrity, and the living
document: eFolio Minnesota and lifelong and lifewide
learning with ePortfolios. Computers & Education,
51(3). doi: 10.1016/j.compedu.2007.11.010.
Dhonau, S., & McAlpine, D. (2005). An electronic portfo-
lio for the ACTFL/NCATE teacher education program
standards in the second language methods course. For-
eign Language Annals, 38(1), 69-76.
Dron, J. & Bhattacharya, M. (2007, July). Lost in the Web
2.0 jungle -Paper presented at the ICALT Conference.
Niigata, Japan.
Elliott, B. (2008). Assessment 2.0: Modernising assessment
in the age of Web 2.0. Scottish Qualifcations Authority.
Retrieved from http://www.scribd.com/doc/461041/
Assessment-20.
Gatlin, L., & Jacob, S. (2002). Standards-based digital
portfolios. A component of authentic assessment for
preservice teachers. Action in Teacher Education, 23(4),
35-42.
Grant, G. E., & Huebner, T. A. (1998). Te portfolio ques-
tion: A powerful synthesis of the personal and profes-
sional. Teacher Education Quarterly, 25(1), 33-43.
Hadley, N.J. (2007). Te portfolio forum: Power in refec-
tion. Journal of Educational Technology Systems, 35(4),
449-455.
Hartnell-Young, E., Smallwood, A., Kingston, S., &
Harley, P. (2006). Joining up the episodes of lifelong
learning: A regional transition project. British Journal
of Education Technology, 37(6). doi:10.1111/j.1467-
8535.206.00668.x
Heinrich, E., Bhattacharya, M., & Rayuda, R. (2007).
Preparation for lifelong learning using eportfolios.
Journal of Engineering Education, 32, 653-663.
Johnson, M. & Liber, O. (2008). Te personal learning
environment and the human conditions: From theory
to teaching practice. Interactive Learning Environments,
16(1), 3-15.
Kelley, L. M. (2004). Why induction matters. Journal of
Teacher Education, 55, 438-448.
Land, S. M., & Zembal-Saul, C. (2003). Scafolding re-
fection and articulation of scientifc explanations in
a data-rich, project-based learning environment: An
investigation of progress portfolio. Educational Tech-
nology Research and Development, 51(4), 65-84.
McAllister, L. M., Hallam, G. C., & Harper, W. E. (2008)
Te ePortfolio as a tool for lifelong learning: Contextu-
alising Australian practice. In Proceedings International
Lifelong Learning Conference 2008, pages pp. 246-252,
Yeppoon, Queensland.
Milman, N. B. (2009). Web-based digital teaching portfo-
lios: What happens afer they graduate. In P. Adamy &
N. B. Milman (Eds.), Evaluating electronic portfolios in
teacher education (pp. 91-109). Charlotte, NC: Informa-
tion Age Publishing, Inc.
National Board for Professional Teaching Standards.
(2010). Take One! Retrieved from http://www.nbpts.
org/help_and_faqs/take_one#2588
Orland-Barak, L. (2005). Portfolios as evidence of refec-
tive practice: What remains untold. Educational Re-
search, 47(1), 25-44.
Reis, N. K., & Villaume, S. (2002). Te benefts, tensions,
and visions of portfolios as a wide-scale assessment for
teacher education. Action in Teacher Education, 23(4),
10-17.
Robinson, M. (2005). Te impact of beginning music
teacher assessment on the assessors: Notes from expe-
rienced teachers. Bulletin of the Council for Research in
Music Education, 164, 49-60.
Rogers, E. M. (2003). Difusion of innovations (5th ed.).
New York: Free Press.
Rolheiser, C., & Schwartz, S. (2001). Pre-service portfolios:
A base for professional growth. Canadian Journal of
Education, 26(3), 283-300.
Severance, C., Hardin, J., & Whyte, A. (2008). Te coming
functionality mash-up in personal learning environ-
ments. Interactive Learning Environments, 16(1), 47-62.
Sessums, C. (2007). Learning Technologies, Teacher Edu-
cation, and Social Media. Retrieved from http://edus-
paces.net/csessums/weblog/169433.html.
Shepherd, C. E., & Hannafn, M. J. (In Press). Supporting
preservice teacher inquiry through electronic portfo-
lios. Journal of Technology and Teacher Education.
Shepherd, C. E., & Hannafn, M. J. (2009). Beyond recol-
lection: Re-examining preservice teacher practices
using structured evidence, analysis, and refection.
Journal of Technology and Teacher Education.
Shepherd, C. E., & Hannafn, M. J. (2008). Examining
preservice teacher inquiry through video-based, forma-
tive assessment e-portfolios. Journal of Computing in
Teacher Education, 25(1), 31-37.
Strudler, N., & Wetzel, K. (2005). Te difusion of elec-
tronic portfolios in teacher education: Issues of initia-
tion and implementation. Journal of Research on Tech-
nology in Education, 37, 411-433.
Van Harmelen, M. (2008). Design trajectories: Four ex-
periments in PLE implementation. Interactive Learning
Environments, 16(1), 35-46.
Waters, J. (2008). Unleashing the power of Web 2.0. Cam-
pus Technology, 21(10), 44-49.
Wheeler, A.,&Yeats, R.(2009)Embedding e-Portfolios for
efective lifelong learning: a case study.In: 8th European
Conference on e-Learning. Retrieved from http://
eprints.aston.ac.uk/7383/2/REVISED_Wheeler_%26_
Yeats_2009_ECEL_Paper.pdf
Wilson, S. (2008). Patterns of personal learning environ-
ments. Interactive Learning Environments, 16(1), 17-34.
Zeichner, K., & Wray, S. (2001). Te teaching portfolio in
US teacher education programs: What we know and
what we need to know. Teaching and Teacher Education,
17, 613-621.