web-based portfolio assessment

Use and performances of Web-based portfolio assessment

Chi-Cheng Chang and Kuo-Hung Tseng

Chi-Cheng Chang is a professor of e-Learning technology in the Department of Industrial TechnologyEducation at National Taiwan Normal University. Kuo-Hung Tseng is a professor of Web-based learningsystems in the Graduate Institute of Business Management at Meiho Institute of Technology. Addressfor correspondence: Prof Chi-Cheng Chang, Department of Industrial Technology Education, NationalTaiwan Normal University, No. 162, Section 1, He-Ping E. Road, Taipei 106, Taiwan. Tel: +886-2-23943885-21; fax: +886-2-23921015; email: [email protected] or [email protected]

AbstractThis research explored the influence of a Web-based portfolio assessmentsystem on students’ performances. The methodological procedure adopted wasto have the experimental group use the system, with the control group usingconventional assessment. The study subjects were junior high school studentsof two computer classes. The experimental results revealed that the use of thesystem has significant positive influence on students’ performances. Accordingto estimated effect size, the most significant indicators were reflection, self-assessment, continuous improvement, goal setting, problem solving, datagathering, work and peer interaction. However, peer-assessment performancewas not enhanced significantly. Therefore, one recommendation was to reducepeer-assessment and instead offer specific illustrations to the students as well asthe opportunity to drill.

IntroductionWhile few would generally dispute the advantages in information storage and presenta-tion associated with the Internet, its bearing on the acceleration of Web-based portfolioshas suffered from comparative analytical neglect (McLoughlin & Luca, 2006). There isevidently a need for correcting this oversight in light of the fact that many schools havealready integrated Web-based portfolios into the curriculum as a new teaching tool(Batson, 2002; Singh & Ritzhaupt, 2006). That the utilisation of Web-based portfolioshas made remarkable progress recently is attestified by the fact that it has become veryprevalent in Europe and the USA as a learning and assessment tool for students. Thedevelopment and growth of the learner over a certain period of time can be inspected andassessed in terms of the creation of a Web-based portfolio, with particular attention tofactors such as reflection, goal setting and self-assessment (Barrett, 2000).

Other studies have complemented these findings. For example, the model of onlinelearning proposed by Bonk and Zhang (2006) demonstrated that reflection can be

British Journal of Educational Technology Vol 40 No 2 2009 358–370doi:10.1111/j.1467-8535.2008.00885.x

© 2008 The Authors. Journal compilation © 2008 Becta. Published by Blackwell Publishing, 9600 Garsington Road, Oxford OX4 2DQ,UK and 350 Main Street, Malden, MA 02148, USA.

mailto:[email protected]

mailto:[email protected]

obtained from a Web-based portfolio for assessing learning progress of students.Forkosh-Baruch, Mioduser and Nachmias’ (2006) discussion of the integration ofInternet technology into curriculum and teaching with regard to the creation of a Webportfolio as an excellent means of student evaluation. Luca and McMahon (2006) wereable to utilise a Web-based portfolio as a self-inspection and self-evaluation tool foronline learning (cf. Barker, 2006; ePortConsortium, 2003). By having their studentscreate Web-based portfolios, Onishi, Tominaga, Hayashi and Yamasaki (2006) came toregard them as the primary tool for reflection, work gathering, process review, evalua-tion, feedback and document organisation, while teaching programming design.Further evidence for the diversity of performative use is discernible in how students atAbilene Christian University, Australia, inserted textual introspection into Web-basedportfolios during the course of their project creation (Dennis, Hardy & White, 2006).Wang, Peng and Lu (2006) used portfolios to undertake cross-culture learning in orderto decrease deficiencies in questionnaire performance. In that study, portfolio assess-ment indicators and guidelines were offered to foster the evaluation. This process clari-fied how portfolios enable learners to display their works, outcomes and reflections, ina manner that assists instructors in their collection of qualitative data for performingauthentic assessment. That study, however, did not explore the performance of usingportfolio assessment.

What is clearer is that Web-based portfolio assessment has the potential to create manyperformances, such as monitoring the learning process, self-inspecting the advantagesand disadvantages and improving development, thereby facilitating overall benefits inlearning (Chang, 2001a). Indeed, there is some consensus among researchers that useof portfolio assessment elevates student’s learning results (Barrett, 2000; Dennis et al,2006). However, specifically which learning result will be enhanced has not been deter-mined. Although some researches have detailed performance elevation (Chan, 2004;Chang, 2001a; Singh & Ritzhaupt, 2006), their evidence is not integrated. Ourresearch seeks to redress this lacuna in the research literature.

We therefore attempt to ascertain any significant differences in students’ performancesbetween Web-based portfolio assessment and the traditional assessment approaches.

Literature reviewPortfolio assessmentThe features of portfolio assessment of interest to our study include long-term learning,multiple assessment, self-assessment and reflection, teacher–student joint participa-tion, valuation and interaction, innovation of teaching and learning (Wu, 2008).McAlpine (2000) proposed the following features as most relevant to determining thedegree to which acceptance of portfolio assessment is displayed in the student’s reallearning-outcome: motivational enhancement, fostering the power of decision makingand selection (viz. word, inclusive of the right to select portfolio content and the way ofpresenting it, self-evaluating the learning outcome and establishing the learning objec-tive), allowing students to develop high-level self-evaluation and decision-making skills,continuously monitoring student’s learning progress and promoting reflection as well

Use and performances of Web-based portfolio assessment 359

© 2008 The Authors. Journal compilation © 2008 Becta.

as assessment of learning. Yu (2006) summarises the features pertaining to portfolioassessment. These include emphasising work assessment, realising student’s advan-tages instead of disadvantages, allowing students to actively participate, encouragingthe student to communicate and share achievements with others, time- and labour-costwork and uncertain reliability. Kuo (2004) has made comparable claims concerning theneed to accommodate individual requirements. In this context, learning-outcomeevaluation is much easier than learning-process evaluation, largely owing to the lati-tude it affords for student participation.

Performance indicators of using portfolio assessmentA Web-based portfolio has the performance of three R’s: representation, reflection andrevision (Acker, 2002; Lorenzo & Ittelson, 2005; Singh & Ritzhaupt, 2006). There arethree performance indicators for using portfolio assessment. Representation highlightsstudent’s long-term learning outcomes as well as the digitisation of the learningprocess. Reflection focuses on self-inspection as well as the feedback from teachers andpeers. Revision stresses the continuous improvement of learning outcome and processbased on self-reflection, in addition to the feedback of teachers and peers. These rela-tionships may be illustrated with reference to the aforementioned students of AbileneChristian University in Australia, who use Web-based portfolios to collect informationabout growth, reflections and assessment, in order to strengthen their performances(Dennis et al, 2006). In this case, one has a working example of how informationcollection, selection, reflection, self-assessment and peer assessment can be regarded asthe performance indicators for using portfolio assessment. Moreover, the indicators ofportfolio assessment become matters of degree with reference to the achievement oflearning goals, display of personal characteristics, collaboration and capability to utiliseresources (Ou, 2004).

On this basis, it may be hypothesised that the performances of portfolio assessment areextensive. This impression is magnified when one considers how they may extend toself-assessment, self-improvement, responsibility, quality of works, reflection, creativity,data gathering, collaboration, resource utilisation, amongst other factors. However,only a simplification of categorisations can yield useful data. Accordingly, one of themain goals of portfolio assessment is to foster the student’s capacity for undertakingself-assessment, as opposed to an exclusive emphasis on student evaluation (Kuo, 2004;Popham, 2002). Therefore, of all the indicators, the improvement in self-assessmentability is believed to be one of the most critical performances for portfolio assessment.

MethodSubjectsThe experimental group was distinguished from the control group on the basis that itused the Web-based portfolio assessment system. The subjects were students drawnfrom two computer classes at a junior high school. There were 30 students in eachgroup. The duration of the study was a 10-week period, with 2 hours allotted for eachweek. Both groups were taught two units of the computer course that are ‘animation

360 British Journal of Educational Technology Vol 40 No 2 2009


creation using PhotoImpact’ and ‘Web page creation using Dreamweaver’. The work of eachunit is one of the items demonstrated in the student portfolios for the experimentalgroup. The computer classes involved material suitable for a Web-based portfolio assess-ment. Holmes, Burton and Heaton (2006) required students to not only create personalWeb pages and PowerPoint presentations, but also to locate their works in their Web-based portfolio. That study supported our operating premise that computer work isideally suited for organisation and demonstration using a Web-based portfolio.

Research designThis study applied the approach of quasi-experimental research design with a pretest–posttest non-equivalent group. Data pertaining to student academic achievement andcomputer achievement for the last semester were also gathered. From these, prerequi-sites for student backgrounds were compiled. The survey of the students’ performanceswas implemented after the experiment for both the experimental group and controlgroup.

For the purpose of this research, the identifiable variables in students’ performancesinclude goal setting, works, reflection, self-assessment, peer assessment, peer interac-tion, data gathering, continuous improvement and problem solving. These nine itemsfeature in the measurement of meta-cognition using a Web-based portfolio assessmentsystem.

Procedure of treatmentDifferent assessment approaches were applied for the experimental group and controlgroup so that the students of the two groups involved various learning activities. Theexperimental group used Web-based assessment approach including self-assessmentand peer assessment, while the control group used traditional paper-and-pencil testingmethod. Rather than self-assessment and peer assessment, the control group onlyinvolved teacher assessment. Furthermore, the two groups followed the same content ofcourse, the same lecture schedule, the same requirements of works, similar submissiondeadlines of works, similar degree of interaction with teachers and peers and so forth.

The procedure adopted is illustrated in Table 1.

Activities of self-assessment and peer assessmentThe Web-based portfolio assessment system offered the following functions for portfolioassessment activities: learning goals setting, reflection, work submission, teacherassessment and feedback and peer assessment and feedback. Prior to assessment, teach-ers could log in to the system and review student portfolio content, and students couldreview their own portfolio or peer portfolios. Several days set by teacher after the workdeadline, the student names in the system were automatically hidden so that theycould not been recognised. Afterward, students could perform self-assessment or peer



Tabl

e1

:P

roce

dure

oftr

eatm

ent

Stag

esTe

achi

ngsc

hedu

lePe

ople

Exp

erim

enta

lgro

upC

ontr

olgr

oup

Pre

para

tion

(firs

tw

eek)

Illu

stra

tion

ofco

urs

eTe

ach

er1

.Se

t-u

pco

urs

ean

dad

dac

cou

nts

ofst

ude

nts

inth

eW

eb-b

ased

port

folio

syst

emP

repa

resy

llabu

sof

cou

rse

2.

Des

crib

epo

rtfo

lioas

sess

men

tac

tivit

ies

3.

Teac

hco

nce

pts

ofpo

rtfo

lio,a

sses

smen

tan

dsk

ills

ofw

riti

ng

refle

ctio

n4

.D

emon

stra

teop

erat

ion

ofth

esy

stem

5.

Expl

ain

asse

ssm

ent

guid

elin

esan

dpo

rtfo

lioas

sess

men

tfo

rmSt

ude

nts

1.

Lear

nco

nce

pts

ofpo

rtfo

lio,a

sses

smen

tan

dsk

ills

ofw

riti

ng

refle

ctio

n1

.P

repa

refo

rcl

ass

2.

Try

out

the

syst

em2

.P

rete

st

3.

Lear

nh

owto

use

port

folio

asse

ssm

ent

form

4.

Pre

test

Use

ofth

efir

stu

nit

(sec

ond

toth

ird

wee

k)A

nim

atio

ncr

eati

onu

sin

gP

hot

oIm

pact

Teac

her

1.

Teac

hin

gan

don

line

disc

uss

ion

1.

Teac

hin

g2

.Ex

plai

ngu

idel

ines

ofas

sess

men

tan

dad

vise

stu

den

tsto

use

port

folio

asse

ssm

ent

form

2.

Expl

ain

com

pute

rw

orks

Stu

den

ts1

.Se

lect

wor

ksu

bjec

t1

.Se

lect

wor

ksu

bjec

t2

.G

ath

erda

ta2

.G

ath

erda

ta3

.D

evel

oppo

rtfo

lioin

the

Web

-bas

edpo

rtfo

liosy

stem

(set

lear

nin

ggo

als,

wri

tere

flect

ion

,etc

)3

.D

iscu

ssio

nof

wor

ks

4.

Upl

oad

rudi

men

tary

wor

ksan

din

-pro

gres

sw

orks

5.

On

line

disc

uss

ion

(fou

rth

wee

k)A

nim

atio

ncr

eati

onu

sin

gP

hot

oIm

pact

Teac

her

1.

Urg

eto

subm

itw

orks

1.

Dem

oex

ampl

esof

wor

ks2

.P

repa

reac

tivit

ies

ofpe

eras

sess

men

t2

.D

iscu

ssio

nof

wor

ksSt

ude

nts

1.

On

line

disc

uss

ion

1.

Dis

cuss

ion

ofw

orks

.2

.O

nlin

ede

mo

wor

ks2

.V

iew

and

emu

late

wor

ks3

.R

evis

ew

orks

3.

Rev

ise

wor

ks4

.U

ploa

dfin

alw

orks

(fift

hw

eek)

Ass

essm

ent

Teac

her

1.

Rev

iew

onlin

ein

tera

ctiv

ere

cord

sof

stu

den

ts1

.R

evie

wst

ude

nts

’wor

ks2

.Te

ach

eras

sess

men

t2

.Te

ach

eras

sess

men

tSt

ude

nts

1.

Self-

asse

ssm

ent

and

peer

asse

ssm

ent

1.

Dem

oan

dpr

esen

tw

orks

2.

Subm

itfin

alw

orks

Use

ofth

ese

con

du

nit

(six

thto

nin

thw

eek)

Web

page

crea

tion

usi

ng

Dre

amw

eave

r

Teac

her

1.

Teac

hin

gan

don

line

disc

uss

ion

1.

Teac

hin

g2

.Ex

plai

npr

oble

ms

inth

eu

seof

the

first

un

it2

.Il

lust

rati

onof

wor

ksSt

ude

nts

Th

esa

me

asu

seof

the

first

un

itT

he

sam

eas

use

ofth

efir

stu

nit

Perf

orm

ance

asse

ssm

ent

(10

thw

eek)

Teac

her

Des

ign

surv

eyD

esig

nsu

rvey

Stu

den

tsSu

rvey

Surv

ey



assessment by clicking scoring buttons on the system. In order to complete the assess-ment online, the system provided assessors with assessment form for scoring andwriting comments.

Data gatheringA questionnaire on student’s performance was created by summarising references fromliterature review. The questionnaire was then refined after several reviews and discus-sions by two teachers and three field experts in order to ensure content validity. Finally,nine aspects in the questionnaire were derived from a focus discussion of the reviewersmentioned above. The nine performance dimensions are goal setting, work, reflection,self-assessment, peer assessment, peer interaction, data gathering, continuousimprovement and problem solving. The former six dimensions are related to the naturesof portfolio assessment approach, while the later three dimensions are involved thenatures of creation of works for a skill-based course. Each dimension has five questions(with 45 questions in total). The questions are presented based on Likert’s 5-pointscaling approach. For instance, self-reflection is measured using the followingquestions:

1. I would perform self-reflection to identify my own growth and improvement.2. I know how to reflect on my work and I think about how to enhance my work.3. According to my self-reflection results, I make appropriate efforts to adjust my way of

learning.4. I think that self-reflection helps me enhance my learning and course work.5. I think that finding out the merits and drawbacks of my own work through self-

reflection, and enhancing the quality of my work, is a useful exercise.

Performance of self-assessment:

1. I would perform self-assessment on my works to identify their merits and problems.2. I know how to perform self-assessment of my work, and identify directions for

improvement.3. I would enhance and adjust my learning method based on the self-assessment

results.4. My self-assessment behaviour helps enhance my learning and works.5. I believe that self-assessment helps discover the good and bad aspects of my own

work, and to enhance the quality of my work.

Performance of problem discovery and solving:

1. I would try to find out and solve problems spontaneously.2. I know how to identify and solve problems spontaneously.3. I would make efforts according to problem-solving results, and adjust my own way

of learning.4. My behaviour in spontaneously solving problems is helpful to enhancing my learn-

ing and work.5. I think that finding out the merits and drawbacks of my work through identifying

and solving the problems spontaneously is useful.



The Cronbach’s a values of the questionnaire of students’ performances for bothgroups are summarised in Table 2. The Cronbach’s a value for the experimental groupis 0.977, and that for the control group is 0.8657. Both groups have high reliabilitywith values greater than 0.7, revealing that the questionnaire has a high degree ofinternal consistency.

The results of factor analysis of the questionnaire for both groups are summarised inTable 3. The Kaiser-Meyer-Olkin values for both groups are all greater than 0.5, indi-cating that factor analysis can be applied. An approach of factor analysis—PrincipalFactor Analysis—may be further used to construct validity of the questionnaire. Theapproach of Oblique Rotation is applied to allow the relationships existing between thefactors (or dimensions). Accumulated variances for explaining the students’ perfor-mances are all greater than 0.65, indicating that each dimension of the questionnairehas an adequate validity.

Table 2: Cronbach’s a value of the performance questionnaire fortwo groups

Performances Experimental group Control group

Goal setting 0.8442 0.7134Work 0.8636 0.7493Reflection 0.8245 0.7631Self-assessment 0.8016 0.7677Peer assessment 0.8232 0.6942Peer interaction 0.8489 0.8463Data gathering 0.8589 0.7232Continuous improvement 0.8635 0.7188Problem solving 0.8234 0.7441Overall 0.9770 0.8657

Table 3: Factor analysis of the performance questionnaire for two groups

Performances

Experimental group Control group

KMO Accumulated variance KMO Accumulated variance

Goal setting 0.793 0.738 0.704 0.672Work 0.938 0.836 0.914 0.805Reflection 0.725 0.683 0.698 0.653Self-assessment 0.704 0.695 0.658 0.631Peer assessment 0.873 0.739 0.746 0.673Peer interaction 0.861 0.773 0.735 0.696Data gathering 0.907 0.863 0.872 0.794Continuous improvement 0.923 0.803 0.910 0.831Problem solving 0.891 0.864 0.726 0.683Overall 0.936 0.697 0.914 0.631

KMO, Kaiser-Meyer-Olkin.



Findings and discussionsComparison of prerequisitesAn independent t-test was conducted to determine the difference in prerequisitesbetween the experimental group and control group. Evidently, there is no significantdifference between the last semester grades of the experimental group and the controlgroup in terms of academic achievement and computer achievement. This suggeststhat the prerequisites for these two groups are similar. However, academic achievementand computer achievement were treated as the control variables in order to decrease itsinterference on the experimental result.

Effects of portfolio assessment system on students’ performances (posttest of two groups)After excluding the influence of academic achievement and computer achievement,there is a significant difference in the students’ performances between both groups,except for the performance of peer assessment (Tables 4 and 5). It thus appears that theWeb-based portfolio assessment system has a significant impact on the student’s per-formances. Among the eight performances with significant differences, reflection showsthe highest estimated effect size (h2 = 0.261) with an observed power of test equal to99.2%; meaning, the probability for the error of the second type is 0.8% (b = 0.008).The second-highest performance is self-assessment (h2 = 0.229) with an observedpower of test of 98.0%, yielding a probable error rate for the second type of 2.0%(b = 0.02). Arranged sequentially according to their estimated effect size, the remain-ing performances are continuous improvement, goal setting, problem solving, datagathering, work and peer interaction.

These results indicate the use of the Web-based portfolio assessment system does notsignificantly improve the performance of peer assessment. A student’s reflection in hisportfolio is quite telling in this regard:

Table 4: Mean and standard deviation of two groups’ performances

Performances

Experimental group Control group

Mean SD Mean SD

Goal setting 3.79 0.67 3.17 0.55Work 3.85 0.71 3.30 0.51Reflection 3.91 0.71 3.19 0.55Self-assessment 3.87 0.67 3.23 0.51Peer assessment 3.92 0.68 3.61 0.50Peer interaction 3.81 0.73 3.17 0.69Data gathering 3.73 0.76 3.15 0.47Continuous improvement 3.90 0.75 3.33 0.46Problem solving 3.89 0.64 3.37 0.43Overall 3.85 0.70 3.28 0.52



“Each student must assess portfolios of several students. We were never required to do that, so I feltinterested. However, I felt a little bit burdened because I had to assess several portfolios. I thought that thequestions in the assessment form should be simplified. Furthermore, some questions were not easy toassess. I had to spend much time comparing the portfolios of my classmates to the questions in theassessment form, otherwise I could not determine the scores. As far as I know, assessing attitudes of someclassmates were not good. Sometimes they did not assess portfolios seriously.”

The conclusion that may be extrapolated from this empirical test is that online assess-ment, evaluation item simplification and peer-assessment capability must be elevatedfurther. Although work is one of the critical entries in the portfolio, reliance on anysingle factor, such as reflection or continuous improvement, proves inadequate when itcomes to significantly increasing the overall quality of work. The enhancement of a

Table 5: ANCOVA of two groups’ performances

Performances Variances F Sig. Estimated effect size

Goal setting Academic achievement 0.302 0.585 0.005Computer achievement 0.004 0.951 0.000Assessment method 14.525 0.000*** 0.206

Work Academic achievement 0.113 0.738 0.002Computer achievement 1.049 0.310 0.018Assessment method 12.500 0.001** 0.182

Reflection Academic achievement 0.018 0.893 0.000Computer achievement 1.352 0.250 0.024Assessment method 19.822 0.000*** 0.261

Self-assessment Academic achievement 0.112 0.739 0.002Computer achievement 0.540 0.466 0.010Assessment method 16.665 0.000*** 0.229

Peer assessment Academic achievement 0.057 0.812 0.001Computer achievement 0.225 0.637 0.004Assessment method 3.823 0.056 0.064

Peer interaction Academic achievement 1.106 0.298 0.019Computer achievement 0.009 0.926 0.000Assessment method 12.368 0.001** 0.181

Data gathering Academic achievement 1.306 0.258 0.023Computer achievement 0.909 0.345 0.016Assessment method 13.648 0.001** 0.196

Continuousimprovement

Academic achievement 2.525 0.118 0.043Computer achievement 1.141 0.290 0.020Assessment method 14.683 0.000*** 0.208

Problem-solving Academic achievement 0.333 0.566 0.006Computer achievement 0.911 0.344 0.016Assessment method 14.188 0.000*** 0.202

Overall Academic achievement 0.738 0.394 0.013Computer achievement 0.956 0.332 0.017Assessment method 21.004 0.000*** 0.273

**p < 0.01, ***p < 0.001.Academic achievement and computer achievement are covariates and assessment method is anindependent variable.



student’s professional knowledge as well as their creative skills is critical to improvingwork quality.

There exists a significant difference in overall performance between the two groups. Theestimated overall effect size is 0.273, revealing that the use of the Web-based portfolioassessment can identify 27.3% of overall performance variation. The observed testpower for overall performance is 99.5%, indicating the probability for the error of thesecond type is 0.5% (b = 0.005).

Some studies have identified detailed performances. Particularly noteworthy in thisrespect are enhancing self-assessment, setting achievement goal (Barrett, 2000), fos-tering student’s self-improvement/self-evaluation ability (Ou, 2004), elevating self-reflection ability, promoting peer communication (Lee, 2001), promoting work quality,enhancing peer interaction (Chang, 2001a), bringing up a student’s self-evaluationand growth ability (Kuo, 2004; Popham, 2002), stimulating active learning and settinglearning goal (Chan, 2004). Of these, performances of continuous improvement, datagathering and problem solving rarely occur. In this study, detailed and significantperformances have been identified, namely reflection, self-assessment, continuousimprovement, goal setting, problem solving, data gathering, work and peer interactionbased upon the extent of effect from high to low.

It should also be noted that portfolio assessment can generate effects not identified inthis study’s results. Indeed, according to Lee (2001), a more comprehensive accountwould have to encompass the following effects: encourage learning interest, developresponsible value, cultivate active learning spirit, maintain cognition skill and attitudeevaluation, look after both process and its result, enhance self-reflection ability, fosterinterpeer communication, improve teacher–student relationship, diversified presenta-tion, stimulate creativity, increase expressivity and organising ability and raise realevaluation achievement. Self-reflection ability and peer communication were con-firmed by our study. Chang (2001a) argues that Web-based portfolio assessment holdsdecisive ramifications for planning future direction, monitoring the learning process,improving work quality, reflecting advantages and disadvantages, increasing motiva-tion, promoting sharing and interaction between peers, fostering development andgrowth and improving learning process and outcome. We concur with this argument inrelation to work quality and peer interaction. Although enhancing self-reflection abilitywas confirmed in our study, Chang (2005) proceeds too simplistically, tending to high-light the chance of increasing reflection, at the expense of promoting reflection ability.

Conclusions and implicationsIn addition to the performance of peer assessment, the remaining indicators of stu-dents’ performances for both groups have shown significant differences (after excludingthe interference of academic achievement and computer achievement). In terms ofoverall performance, both groups differ markedly. This suggests that the use of theWeb-based portfolio assessment system significantly affects the student’s performance.The result coincides with the conclusion of most researchers that, ‘portfolio assessment



approach may enhance student’s performance’ (Barrett, 2000; Chang, 2001a, b;Dennis et al, 2006; Singh & Ritzhaupt, 2006). Nevertheless, detailed performanceswere not identified in these previous studies.

The remaining performances, except peer assessment, have been enhanced signifi-cantly. Therefore, one recommendation is to reduce peer assessment and instead offerspecific illustrations to the students as well as the opportunity to drill. Much more timemust also be allowed for completing peer-assessment activities if they are to play aproductive role. Although the performance of work has been enhanced, it is less sig-nificant than other performances. Consequently, work creation ability and work perfor-mance must be enhanced. Striving to improve a student’s computer skills andknowledge is recommended as a means to this end. Other recommendations, such asmore guidance from teachers, peer collaboration and explicit steps for work creationcould prove useful supplements.

Some performances of Web-based portfolio assessment were clearly confirmed in thisstudy. However, according to the results of past studies, effective implementation con-tinues to face significant challenges. Particularly noteworthy are validity and reliability,time consumption, peer-assessment ability and technology usage. Each of these factorscould prove instructive for both teachers and researchers interested in Web-based port-folio assessment. With regard to the learning roles of a Web-based portfolio for students,Sherman (2006) argued that they are often limited to assessment and reflection. Heproposed other learning roles for a Web-based portfolio: artefact production, learninggoal setting, interaction between teacher and students and a data organisation tool.Those roles have been identified through an evaluation of Web-based assessment in thisstudy.

This study was specifically tailored to the requirements of a computer applicationcourse in junior high schools. It follows that the results are not necessarily applicable toother courses and student profiles. Therefore, further research on other courses andsubjects may be conducted to find other interesting results or potential issues. As Web-based portfolio assessment is gradually integrated into a curriculum, appropriate teach-ing strategies should be applied. As Hickerson and Preston (2006) found, teachinggoals that are compatible with Web-based portfolio assessment would promote stu-dents’ learning outcomes and be beneficial to students’ reflection processes. In the finalanalysis, this study has constructed some grounds from which to argue that while theinteractive effects of teaching strategies and assessment methods on learning are cer-tainly multifarious, they remain amenable to empirical investigation, and as such, mayultimately be harnessed to the setting of educational policy goals.

ReferencesAcker, S. (2002). Technology-enabled teaching/eLearning dialogue: overcoming obstacles to authentic

ePortfolio assessment. Retrieved on July 26, 2008, from http://campustechnology.com/articles/40147/



http://campustechnology.com/articles

Barker, K. C. (2006). Environmental scan: overview of the ePortfolio in general and in the workplacespecifically. Retrieved on July 26, 2008, from http://www.FuturEd.com/library.htm

Barrett, H. C. (2000). Electronic portfolios = multimedia development + portfolio development: theelectronic portfolio development process. Retrieved on July 26, 2008, from http://eric.ed.gov/ERICDocs/data/ericdocs2sql/content_storage_01/0000019b/80/16/6a/23.pdf

Batson, T. (2002). The electronic portfolio boom: what’s it all about. Syllabus. Retrieved on July26, 2008, from http://campustechnology.com/print.asp?ID=6984 or http://www.msmc.la.edu/include/learning_resources/emerging_technologies/eportfolio/ePortfolio_boom.pdf

Bonk, C. & Zhang, K. (2006). The R2D2 model of online instruction: a mapping out of thecomponents. In E. Pearson & P. Bohman (Eds), Proceedings of Ed-Media (pp. 2010–2015).Norfolk, VA: AACE.

Chan, K.-J. (2004). Implementation of Web-based portfolio assessment in primary schools. (Unpub-lished master’s thesis, National Taipei University of Education).

Chang, C.-C. (2001a). A study on the evaluation and effectiveness analysis of Web-based learn-ing portfolio (WBLP). British Journal of Educational Technology, 32, 4, 435–458.

Chang, C.-C. (2001b). Construction and evaluation of a Web-based learning portfolio: an elec-tronic authentic assessment tool. Innovations in Education and Teaching International, 38, 2,144–155.

Chang, Y.-W. (2005). Educational test and assessment: from classroom viewpoint. Taipei:Wu-Nan.

Dennis, C., Hardy, J. & White, P. (2006). Development of a model to advance the uptake ofWeb-based portfolios for undergraduates in teacher education and registered nurse prepara-tion: an exemplar of best practice. In E. Pearson & P. Bohman (Eds), Proceedings of Ed-Media (pp.248–253). Norfolk, VA: AACE.

ePortConsortium (2003). Electronic portfolio white paper. Retrieved on July 26, 2008, from http://eportconsortium.org/Content/Root/whitePaper.aspx

Forkosh-Baruch, A., Mioduser, D. & Nachmias, R. (2006). Diffusion of patterns of ICT-basedpedagogical innovations. In E. Pearson & P. Bohman (Eds), Proceedings of Ed-Media (pp. 58–65).Norfolk, VA: AACE.

Hickerson, C. & Preston, M. (2006). Transition to eportfolios: a case study of student attitudes.Instructional roles of electronic portfolios. In A. Jafari & C. Kaufman (Eds), Handbook of researchon eportfolios (pp. 458–471). Hershey, PA: Idea Group Reference.

Holmes, B., Burton, N. & Heaton, L. (2006). Increasing teacher awareness of assistive technologythrough integration into special education preparation programs. In E. Pearson & P. Bohman(Eds), Proceedings of Ed-Media (pp. 1855–1860). Norfolk, VA: AACE.

Kuo, S.-Y. (2004). Educational test and assessment. Taipei: Chin-Hau.Lee, K.-C. (2001). Teaching materials and methods of comprehensive activity fields. Taipei: Shin-Lee.Lorenzo, G. & Ittelson, J. (2005). An overview of ePortfolios. The Educause Learning Initiative.

Retrieved December 26, 2006, from http://www.educause.edu/ir/library/pdf/ELI3001.pdf/Luca, J. & McMahon, M. (2006). Developing multidisciplinary teams through self-assessment,

supported with online tools. In E. Pearson & P. Bohman (Eds), Proceedings of Ed-Media (pp.1855–1860). Norfolk, VA: AACE.

McAlpine, D. (2000). Assessment and the Gifted. Tall Poppies, 25, 1. Retrieved on July 26, 2008,from http://www.tki.org.nz/r/gifted/pedagogy/portfolio_e.php

McLoughlin, C. & Luca, J. (2006). Best practice in online assessment: principles, processes andoutcomes. In E. Pearson & P. Bohman (Eds), Proceedings of Ed-Media (pp. 2375–2382). Norfolk,VA: AACE.

Onishi, Y., Tominaga, H., Hayashi, T. & Yamasaki, T. (2006). Exercise analysis and lesson planwith robot behavior in LEGO programming contest for problem solving learning. In E. Pearson& P. Bohman (Eds), Proceedings of Ed-Media (pp. 1943–1950). Norfolk, VA: AACE.

Ou, C.-H. (2004). Educational test and assessment. Taipei: Shin-Lee.Popham, W. J. (2002). Classroom assessment: what teachers need to know. Boston, MA: Allyn and

Bacon.



http://www.FuturEd.com/library.htm

http://eric.ed.gov

http://campustechnology.com/print.asp?ID=6984

http://www.msmc

http://eportconsortium.org/Content/Root/whitePaper.aspx

http://eportconsortium.org/Content/Root/whitePaper.aspx

http://www.educause.edu/ir/library/pdf/ELI3001.pdf

http://www.tki.org.nz/r/gifted/pedagogy/portfolio_e.php

Sherman, G. (2006). Instructional roles of electronic portfolios. In A. Jafari & C. Kaufman (Eds),Hand book of research on eportfolios. (pp. 1–14). Hershey, PA: Idea Group Reference.

Singh, O. & Ritzhaupt, A. D. (2006). Student perceptive of organizational uses of eportfolios inhigher education. In E. Pearson & P. Bohman (Eds), Proceedings of Ed-Media (pp. 1717–1722).Norfolk, VA: AACE.

Wang, C.-I., Peng, H. Y. & Lu, W.-H. (2006). A framework for the assessing of interculturalcommunicative competence: a mixed approach. In E. Pearson & P. Bohman (Eds), Proceedings ofEd-Media (pp. 2979–2984). Norfolk, VA: AACE.

Wu, M.-F. (2008). Reliability and validity of Web-based portfolio assessment rubrics. (Unpublishedmaster’s thesis, National Taipei University of Technology).

Yu, M.-N. (2006). Educational measurement—achievement test and teaching assessment. Taipei:Shin-Lee.



web-based portfolio assessment

Documents