Electronic Portfolio case studies provide significant clues as to whether which user groups benefit

the most of ePortfolio system implementations and they also cast light on the widespread belief that
students seem to be most interested in the ways ePortfolios can flesh out their résumés, both before
and after graduation (Batson, 2002). No doubt, at an institutional level these systems are useful in
management, assessment and reviews of student coursework as well as programme development. Yet,
there are areas where ePortfolio systems seem not to capture the needs of potential employers and it
seems more work needs to be done in order to reflect skills acquired in affinitive spaces and informal
learning practices. This brief summary does not attempt to provide answers but aims to raise
questions.

The [UK] Assurance Agency (QAA) defines PDP as “a structured and supported process undertaken
by an individual to reflect upon their own learning, performance and/or achievement and to plan for
their personal, educational and career development.” Ideally, an ePortfolio would help a range of
users to identity and manage learning progress: the learner her/himself, potential colleagues and
employers, teachers/lecturers, administrators, course/programme managers in educational institutions.

In 2004, David Ford et al. published their discussion of findings in relation to the implementation of
an ePortfolio system in Nottingham. The City of Nottingham’s Passport system operates in local
schools and is connected to the University of Nottingham’s ePARs system, they are supposed to help
making the transition between stages of education easier. This involves the individual learner’s
personal targets, the development of their CV as well as administrative processing of admission
requests and record-keeping of academic progress. The target group consists of young people from
the age of 11 and covers those up into the stage where they are progressing towards their first career
post -secondary education.

Positive outcomes were registered in so far as users noticed motivational effects and an increase in
self-esteem and confidence due to enhanced self-management and self-review skills. The
implementation of the system was beneficial to educational institutions whose planning and admission
processes could be improved due to data sharing among each other. Teachers and lecturers benefited
in relation to standardisation of assessment, handling of timetables and bookings of tutorials.

Key limitations related to restricted functionality, data storage and security, data transferability and
data access rights – catering the future socially mobile and flexible work force that may have more
than one career in a globalised world seemed to be an ambitious goal. Batson (2002) had recognised
that interoperability in an ever more dynamic and constantly updated and interconnected world would

1
Britta Bohlinger- 09/2009

http://britbohlinger.wordpress.com
require non-static systems to reflect students’ progress and allow them to aggregate their pieces of
work. As Jafari (2004) rightly pointed out: ePortfolio systems need to stick for a lifetime and they
need to offer solutions for technical and licensing difficulties across institutional boundaries,
including the networking between alumni as well as accessibility to employers in various industries.

Taking into account what current data sharing sites enable users to represent and share across various
platforms and with all kinds of audiences, whether in private or public settings, including the
aggregation of digital products and skills, ePortfolios come across as very web 1.0-driven. The key
question is whether ePortfolios will be able to keep pace with the technological development and the
rapidly changing practices in online spaces. Also, will they sufficiently take into account that
employers are still not overly enthusiastic by the prospect to be presented with pieces of work that
were not compiled for purposes related to their needs but academic assessment, possibly even some
years ago?

References

Batson, T. (2002) ‘The electronic portfolio boom: what’s it all about?’ [online] Campus Technology.
Available from: http://campustechnology.com/articles/2002/11/theelectronic-portfolio-boom-whats-it-
all-about.aspx [10 September 2009]

Jafari, A. (2004) ‘The “sticky” e-portfolio system: tackling challenges and identifying attributes’
(online), Educause Review, vol. 39, no. 4 (July/August), pp. 38–49. Available from
http://www.educause.edu/ir/library/pdf/erm0442.pdf [10 September 2009]

QAA (2001) ‘Guidelines for HE Progress Files’ [online] Quality Assurance Agency for Higher
Education. Available from
http://www.qaa.ac.uk/academicinfrastructure/progressFiles/guidelines/progfile2001.asp
[10September]

Ford, D., Harley, P. and Smallwood, A. (2004) ‘Integrating an eportfolio within a university and the
wider community’ [online], workshop presentation, EIfEL ePortfolio conference, La Rochelle,
October 2004, University of Nottingham. Available from
http://www.nottingham.ac.uk/eportfolio/specifyinganeportfolio/keydocuments/LaRochelle
Paper.doc [10 September 2009]

2
Britta Bohlinger- 09/2009

http://britbohlinger.wordpress.com