1 

 

ISBN 978‐988‐15465‐6‐2

Working Paper No. 4 The Chinese University of Hong Kong Development of a Conceptual Framework for Articulating Experiential Learning Using ePortfolios Carmel McNaught Paul Lam Chan Yiu Man Centre for Learning Enhancement And Research

Funded by University Grants Committee, as a Teaching Development Grant, 2008–09

2009 Citation: McNaught, C., Lam, P., & Chan, Y. M. (2009). Development of a conceptual framework for articulating experiential learning using ePortfolios. Working Paper 4. Hong Kong: Centre for Learning Enhancement And Research, The Chinese University of Hong Kong.

2 

 

Contents

Section Title Page

1. Aims of the project 3

2. Differing perspectives on ePortfolios in different nations 3

3. Information in ePortfolios 5

3a. Formal academic transcripts 7

3b. Formal experiential learning transcripts 8

3c. Generic learning outcomes 8

3d. Subject-specific programme/ course learning outcomes 10

4. Using an ePortfolio for different intentions 10

5. 5. Examples for using an ePortfolio system for different purposes 12

5A. For assessment 12

5B. For presentation and CVs 13

5C. For reflecting and planning learning 15

5D. For tracking personal development 17

5E. For team work 17

6. Considerations for CUHK 19

7. References 20

8. Acknowledgement 22

9. Appendix: Notes about software options 23

Figure 1. Possible overall ePortfolio system for CUHK 6

Table 1. EPortfolios: Strengths and weaknesses 11

3 

 

1. Aims of the project The project focused on the development of a conceptual framework for articulating experiential learning using ePortfolios through a comprehensive investigation of the literature and international practice. The key questions explored in the study included: 1. Objectives and functions: What objectives can be achieved through the various functions of

ePortfolios? What are the strengths and weaknesses of ePortfolios in achieving the functions? 2. Development models: What are the design features that can facilitate the functions of ePortfolios?

For example, what records are considered to be appropriate evidence of experiential learning? Who should upload information – the students or the event organizer? What is the role of the university in validating (or not validating) the evidence and records uploaded by students? What is expected about the continuity of ePortfolio information after students’ graduation? What is the typical developmental work, processes and resources needed in developing ePortfolios associated with various models?

3. Specifications for CUHK: What is the appropriate model for the University to pursue after considering the pros and cons, and the local needs and expectations?

A subsequent aim was to provide useful information to the ePortfolio component of the project ‘Using technology to enrich and enhance student learning experiences’, funded by the UGC under the umbrella project ‘New Initiatives Related to Implementation of “3+3+4”’. This project will provide tools for enactment of the I*CARE framework, briefly mentioned on p. 5. 2. Differing perspectives on ePortfolios in different nations Internet technology has enhanced the functions of portfolios – a strategy that has been in use for decades, especially in professional education. The use of electronic portfolios (also called ePortfolios or web-portfolios) is one strategy to assist students develop learning profiles, thus assisting students’ personal growth and reflection on learning. Modern ePortfolios allow students to provide evidence of a variety of learning outcomes using a wide range of media including text, audio, images and video. EPortfolio tools have a wide range of functions and have made a significant impact on higher education worldwide. The use of ePortfolios can be traced to the mid-1990s (Paoletti, 2006); however, in recent years the development of ePortfolios in higher education has grown rapidly. For example, in the United States (US), where there is a culture of diversity in higher education, ePortfolios tend to be used at course and programme levels, rather than at institutional and national levels. Unlike the American or Canadian systems which emphasize institutional autonomy, the European, the United Kingdom (UK) and the Australian higher education systems have a higher degree of centralization, standardization and transparency, and the central governments play an active and direct role in monitoring the quality of education. UK The Quality Assurance Agency (QAA) in the UK requires every higher education institution to follow a comprehensive quality assurance (QA) system and implement QA policies. Initiated by the government higher education policy, Personal Development Planning (PDP) and Progress Files have been put forward to support all students in higher education. According to the Guidelines for HE Progress Files (Universities UK et al., 2001), all institutions in the higher education sector in the UK were expected to set up a PDP programme by 2005–2006, thus providing a centralized management system to support student personal development.

4 

 

Europe In Europe, major international ePortfolio initiatives have been steadily growing over the past few years. The European Institute for E-Learning (EIfEL), an independent European professional association, launched a campaign ‘ePortfolio for all’ in 2003. The main objective of the campaign is for all European citizens to have access to an ePortfolio in 2010 (Ravet, 2007). Australia In Australia, the use of ePortfolios probably arose within traditional portfolio-based areas such as teacher and nursing education, where formal evidence of learning is required for registration (McAllister, Hallam & Harper, 2008). There have been initiatives concerning careers and employment – for example, as a response to issues identified by Australian employers, whereby they “generally favoured the ePortfolio approach as a means to obtain a more informed picture of a job candidate than is usually provided in a traditional curriculum vitae” (Precision Consultancy, 2007, p. 42). There is interest in the development of a national ePortfolio tool that could be used for the recognition and recording of employment skills and was designed for the vocational education and training sector (Curyer, Leeson, Mason & Williams, 2007). The Australian e-portfolio Project examined ePortfolio policy and practice in Australia through focus groups, interviews, surveys and case studies. The project was carried out by a consortium of four universities: Queensland University of Technology, The University of Melbourne, the University of New England and the University of Wollongong, and was commissioned by the Australian Learning and Teaching Council (ALTC). It provided an overview of the national and international context related to the development of ePortfolios and developed recommendations covering government policy, international technical standards, academic policy, and learning and teaching research and practice. In line with the national policy of enhancing education policy, the report highlighted international standards for ePortfolios and the value of ePortfolios in formal and informal learning. It also recommended that “academic policy in higher education institutions should recognise the value of ePortfolio practice as a component of different pedagogies that enhance the quality of learning and teaching across the institution” (Hallam et al., 2008, p. v). US In the US “there are several successful examples of systematic portfolio assessment with portfolios, both print and electronic, such as work with writing across the curriculum portfolios at Washington State University, the Learning Record system, and Alverno College’s Digital Diagnostic Portfolio … Many other institutions are building on these pioneering models. Within the membership of the Inter/National Coalition for Electronic Portfolio Research, for example, in addition to Alverno and Washington State, Indiana University–Purdue University at Indianapolis (IUPUI), Portland State University, Arizona State University Polytechnic, Thomas College, Bowling Green State University, and multiple campuses of the California State University and Minnesota State Colleges and Universities systems are using electronic portfolios to track student learning in connection with a set of general education goals.” (Cambridge, 2008, pp. 51–52) Governments in the US and Canada tend to give autonomy to individual institutions to develop their own ePortfolio practice. EPortfolios in the US have been used for supporting learning in primary, secondary and tertiary education. For example, educators in the design disciplines such as Fine Arts and Architecture began to use digital media to support the portfolio possesses in the early 1990s (Cambridge, 2005). Based on the Campus Computing Project (2004), approximately 28% of public universities reported ePortfolio services on their campus website in 2004. Institutional collaboration initiatives, such as Inter/National Coalition for Electronic Portfolio Research, ePortConsortium and the Sakai Foundation, are notable for their use of ePortfolios in the US. While the Electronic Portfolio White Paper (ePortConsortium, 2003) provides a comprehensive review of ePortfolios and provides a conceptual overview of exploring potential opportunities and challenges to adopters and developers, the Sakai Foundation built a common Courseware Management System in 2004, and Stanford, Michigan, Indiana, MIT and Berkeley participated in the

5 

 

programme (Sakai Foundation, 2009). In the US, ePortfolios have been widely used in many higher education institutions for a wide range of purposes: e.g. linking between student affairs and faculty (Johnson & Rayman, 2007), enhancing learning and assessment (Goldsmith, 2007), supporting students’ career planning, and transiting to employment or professional studies (Lumsden, 2007). The development of a CUHK model should be based on the University’s own characteristics, including mission, students’ levels of maturity, and the University’s outcomes-based teaching and learning policy. It is intended that the present review can reveal the various possibilities of ePortfolios in terms of possible designs, structures, functionalities and objectives they can achieve. The understanding will contribute to the ultimate design of the CUHK ePortfolio framework and subsequently benefit teaching and learning at the University. Please note that the reference list contains not only those references cited in this report. It also contains additional references consulted in the process of constructing this report. 3. Information in ePortfolios Figure 1 illustrates how a possible overall ePortfolio system might be constructed with four types of ePortfolios. Formal academic transcripts Formal experiential learning transcripts A focus on generic learning outcomes A focus on discipline-specific programme/ course learning outcomes The diagram has been developed with CUSIS and the I*CARE framework in mind. The Chinese University Student Information System (CUSIS) is under development

(http://www.cuhk.edu.hk/cusis/) and will provide the University with a robust information system linked to other systems used by staff and students through a new Chinese University portal.

I*CARE is the ‘logo’ for the framework for student whole-person development. This framework was developed to allow more synergy and coordination between the multiplicity of student development activities and services. The elements are: I = Integrity and moral development 德 – 修身立德 C = Creativity and intellectual development 智 – 博學創新 A = Appreciation of life and aesthetic development 美 – 美悅人生 R = Relationships and social development 群 – 推己及人 E = Energy and wellness 體 – 健體康心

6 

 

a. Formal academic transcripts

b. Formal experiential

learning transcripts

c. Focus on generic learning

outcomes

d. Discipline-specific

programme/ course learning

outcomes

Personal development records. Could be a template

where students reflect on elements of the I*CARE framework.

Takes data direct from CUSIS.

Accredited experiential learning events. Relates to I*CARE framework.

Input from OAL, PE Unit, Colleges,

faculties, programmes, etc.

Evidence of attainment of learning outcomes. Could be pieces of

assessmment, evidence of team work,

etc.

Will be University-controlled.Definitely will be done.

Will be University-controlled.Highly likely to be done.

Designed as a student-controlled area.Plans for development in this area are

unclear at this stage.

Could have contributions from both teachers and students.

Exists already; probably will be developed further.

Figure 1. Possible overall ePortfolio system for CUHK

7 

 

3a. Formal academic transcripts This area has information typically present in an academic transcript concerning the academic learning experiences of a student. In terms of the data set for a transcript, the UK system has a clear policy statement and guideline. It can be used as a point of reference. The Policy Statement on a Progress File for Higher Education (QAA, 2000) requires all Higher Education (HE) institutions to include the following categories in a programme transcript by 2002–2003: Recommended data set for a programme transcript Student

Name Date of birth Institutional reference number Higher Education Statistics Agency

(HESA) reference number Qualification

Name of qualification Level of qualification in National

Qualifications Framework (NQF) Name of awarding institution Name of institution responsible for

delivering the programme Language(s) of instruction (to meet EC

requirement) Language(s) of assessment (to meet EC

requirement) Professional Body accreditation Statutory Regulatory Body

recognition/approval Record of Learning and Achievement

Name of programme Module or unit study code (this should

also indicate the level in the NQF that the module/unit is studied)

Module or unit study title Number of credits awarded for each

module/unit completed Date (year) in which credit awarded Mark or grade for each module or unit

studied Number of attempts to complete a

module/unit (if more than one attempt made)

Other Types of Learning within the context of a programme

Study Abroad (include European Credit Transfer and Accumulation System (ECTS) credits if applicable)

Work placement Work experience Accredited prior certificated and

experiential learning Accredited Key Skills

Award

Overall credits achieved Overall mark/grade Overall classification or performance

indicator (e.g. merit/distinction) Professional/Statutory Body recognition

(if applicable, an indication that in gaining the award a candidate has satisfied the academic requirements for registration or membership etc)

Date of award Authentication

Date of issue Signature/seal (to be determined by HEI) Telephone number for validating

information Explanatory information

Guidance on how to interpret the transcript

Information on the grading scheme Overview of the National Qualification

Awards Framework Overview of the UK HE system

(specifically for overseas students)

Another structure is provided by the Diploma Supplement which is a European initiative aiming at improving international ‘transparency’ and at facilitating the academic and professional recognition of qualifications (diplomas, degrees, certificates etc.). It is designed to provide a description of the nature, level, context, content and status of the studies that were successfully completed by the individual

8 

 

named on the original qualification to which this supplement is appended (European Commission, 2009). Adopted by the European Commission, Council of Europe and UNESCO, it requires that all universities within the European Commission area ensure that every student graduating as from 2005 should receive the Diploma Supplement automatically and free of charge. The Supplement contains information on the nature, level, context, content and status of the studies. Details of the information sections and the order in which information should be presented can be found in the Guide to The Diploma Supplement published by the UK Europe Unit (2006). The Diploma Supplement is used widely in other countries participating in the Bologna Process and there is a growing interest beyond. For example, in Australia a consortium of universities has been commissioned by the government to develop a single agreed template for an Australian version of the European Diploma Supplement. The consortium represented 14 universities led by the University of New England, The University of Melbourne, and the Australian National University. The key recommendations from the study are that the Australian Diploma Supplement be referred to as the Australian Higher Education Graduation Statement, that the Graduation Statement should be provided without cost to all higher education graduates and that implementation in Australian universities should be on a voluntary basis commencing as soon as practicable in 2008 (Australian Government, 2008). To ensure national consistency, Graduation Statements should be presented in a uniform sequence by all higher education institutions (Commonwealth of Australia, 2008). There was a generally positive reaction to the suggestion that the Diploma Supplement and Transcript could be incorporated into a single document (JISC InfoNet, 2008). This approach would mean that the Diploma Supplement would include the final Transcript, with a heading such as, ‘The Diploma Supplement/ Transcript’ (Europe UK Unit, 2006). 3b. Formal experiential learning transcripts An ePortfolio system is not just for official academic transcripts. It can also contain information about students’ formal experiential learning experiences gaining from academic links, colleges, departments or programmes, etc. For example, the UK HE guidelines (QAA 2000, 2009) specify the following five items as “Other Types of Learning” within the context of a programme: 1. Study abroad (include European Credit Transfer and Accumulation System credits if applicable) 2. Work placement 3. Work experience 4. Accredited / certificated experiential learning 5. Accredited key skills An example of a student’s entry of experiential learning might contain the following records: Records of formal experiential learning Study Abroad: 4-week fieldwork in Canton, China (to support dissertation) Work experience: 3-month work experience with Radio Television Hong Kong Accredited /certificated experiential learning: Windsurfing (Elementary Certificate of Windsurfing

Association of Hong Kong) (16 hours) through the Summer Sports Programme, of the Physical Education Unit, Chinese University of Hong Kong

Accredited key skills: Passed the National Putonghua Proficiency Test in 2009. 3c. Generic learning outcomes As CUHK has adopted an outcomes-based approach as a university policy of learning and teaching, the design of the ePortfolio system should reflect this dimension and cover the desired attributes of

9 

 

the graduates, such as intellectual development, bilingualism and multiculturalism as well as ability to face the challenges of contemporary life. Bearing these issues in mind, the main objectives of the ePortfolio system at CUHK could be for supporting students in acquiring appropriate University attributes, values and skills, particularly in relation to achieving the educational ideals of CUHK, i.e. moral development and values, intellectual development and innovation, physical development and a healthy lifestyle, social development and personal management, as well as aesthetic development and appreciation of life, as delineated in the I*CARE framework, and also articulated in the CUHK Strategic Plan (http://www.cuhk.edu.hk/strategicplan/english/documents/cuhk-strategic-plan.pdf). In these aspects, the UK experience of e-Progress File and e-PDP has much to offer because of its national movement to implement a PDP policy across the whole UK higher education system starting from 2005. In the UK model, Progress File is a document charting the progress of an individual. It consists of two elements: a transcript recording student formal achievement; and a means by which students can monitor, build and reflect upon their personal development, including personal records of learning and achievements, progress reviews and plans (Universities UK et al., 2001). As the UK framework is founded on the concept of learning outcomes, Progress File relates to programme specifications, subject benchmarking and qualifications frameworks because the concept of personal development planning covers three key elements in the learning process: intended learning outcomes, process of learning and the results of learning. The primary objective for personal development planning (PDP) is to improve the capacity of individuals to understand what and how they learn and to review, and plan for their own learning. It is intended that institutions will facilitate more effective monitoring of student progress, result in more effective academic support and enhance capacity to demonstrate the quality of support to students. Gough et al. (2003) undertook a systematic review on the effectiveness of PDP and the results showed that PDPs have a positive effect on student learning, student attainment and students’ approaches to learning. According to QAA (2000), the minimum expectations for institutional PDP policies are that: institutional promotional materials should indicate how the skills and attitudes that underlie

PDP are promoted; at the start of a higher education programme, students will be introduced to the opportunities

for PDP within their programme; students will be provided with opportunities for PDP at each stage of their programme; the rationale for PDP at different stages of a programme will be explained for the benefit of

students (e.g. in student or course handbooks or module/unit guides); and the nature and scope of opportunities for PDP, recording and support strategies will be

determined by each institution. The adoption of PDP means to provide opportunities to students to reflect on learning as well as encourage a synoptic analysis and design assessment to look at performance as a whole (Randell, 1999). The evaluation of learning and achievement leads to areas of student development and action planning activities. The process guides the learner’s development and culminates in evidence that charts personal and educational development (Dalziel, Challen & Sutherland, 2006). A system might comprise the following main structural areas as outlined in the QUT (Emmett, Harper & Hauville, 2006) or Newcastle system (Cotterill et al., 2006): Portfolio management: where students are able to add, edit, and manage experiences and

artefacts; Outcomes/skill sets: a bank of generic components, including a learning diary, log of meetings

with tutors, learning outcomes/skills log, and tools; Portfolio features: supporting content sharing, commenting, attaching objects (files, etc.) and

integrated action planning; Portfolio display: where authorized users can view released portfolios

10 

 

Portfolio support: where students and staff can access sample ePortfolios, electronic and print guides, and tutorials;

CV builder: where students can create, release, and manage their CV; and File manager: where students can store up a certain amount of artefacts in digital format. 3d. Subject-specific programme/ course learning outcomes This facility within an ePortfolio system focuses on student learning evidence and progress in subject-specific programme/ course learning outcomes. As the nature of different disciplines varies, an institutional ePortfolio system should therefore permit tailoring for individual disciplines through appropriate templates, etc. In some Faculties at CUHK, the synergies between disciplines may result in a Faculty-wide approach to ePortfolio planning being useful. 4. Using an ePortfolio for different intentions EPortfolios can be used in a wide range of ways to achieve intentions that benefit students, teachers and/or the institution in a number of ways. Classifications of these intentions have been suggested by IMS Global Learning Consortium (2005, 2009), the European Portfolio Initiatives Co-ordination Committee, and the British Educational Communications and Technology Agency (Curyer, Leeson, Mason & Williams, 2007; Gray, 2007). We will focus on five major types of intentions of use listed below, all of which differ in:

1) the objectives they aim to achieve; and 2) the scope of student/ teacher activities normally associated with them.

These different types of ePortfolios can be used for different intentions – for assessment, for presentations and CVs, as tools for learning, recording personal development, and in team work. A. As assessment, the building of the ePortfolio content becomes an assignment for the students

and can contribute to grades (Barker, 2006; ePortfolio Consortium, 2003). Lee (2001) argued that portfolio assessment put more emphasis on a student-centred approach to learning as the students now bear higher responsibility to demonstrate learning.

B. In the presentation and CV model, the ePortfolio resembles an abundant online museum/ art

gallery/ an exhibition space (Dennis, Hardy & White, 2006) of students’ work. Students use it to present their learning progress to teachers; graduates can use it to demonstrate capabilities to potential employers.

C. As a learning tool, Singh and Ritzhaupt (2006) argued that ePortfolios enhance students’

information technology capability, increasing feedback from teachers and peers, fostering reflection, demonstrating professional abilities, promoting writing ability, inspecting learning process, and enhancing learning outcomes. Sun (2003) also remarked that ePortfolios benefits learning skills such as problem solving, self-reflection, active learning, presentation, interaction, communication, revision, and use of technology; as well as fostering an attitude of sharing.

D. As for recording personal development, Dennis, Hardy and White (2006) described how

ePortfolios might enhance professional growth and ability through recording, reflecting on and demonstrating a learning path. The records of extra-curricular activities may be highly relevant to this function. Informal learning or experiential learning is considered to be highly related to personal growth. Evidence of learning outside the course syllabus, such as participation in student organizations or exchange programmes, can be recorded in an ePortfolio to suggest achievement of learning outcomes such as leadership and cultural awareness.

11 

 

E. In some designs, an ePortfolio can be accessed by multiple owners for team work and group projects. The team progress in learning and their reflections on learning can be portrayed in this model.

Various objectives can be achieved through these five types of ePortfolios. Table 1 provides a summary of different types of ePortfolio, noting their purposes, strengths and possible weaknesses. Table 2. EPortfolios: strengths and weaknesses  

Type of ePortfolio

Purpose Strengths Potential weaknesses

Assessment Assessing and evaluating products and/or process

Learners can use detailed portfolio requirement criteria to regulate learning and assess progress as they complete assignments.

The compilation of artifacts and preparation of reflective writing can be time-consuming and problematic.

Presentation/ Showcasing

Presenting oneself

Learners can make use of computer tools to create presentations and showcase their achievements.

Students have to gain access to a computer and have a reasonably competent level of IT skills.

Learning Assisting learning

Students can make full use of the learning materials that are created in an electronic format and they can access the ePortfolio from any networked computer.

There is a possible duplication with the paper system in formal education.

Personal development planning (PDP)

Planning development

Students and tutors work together to set academic or/and non-academic learning outcomes. Student progress can be regularly monitored through the ePortfolio system to detect competence. The context and process of learning can be shared and reviewed. Through reflections, students are supported for their engagement in learning.

There is a financial and resource implication for setting up the system. Staff and students may not familiar with using the system. Training and monitoring the system are an investment of time and money. Students may not like to do reflections if awards or marks are not available. Extra time and careful planning of the system are likely needed.

Teamwork Collecting, sharing and reflecting on artifacts

There are potential value-added features such as being flexible, searchable, transferable and having easy access.

Students who are not fully IT-literate may take a long time to become familiar with the system and there is a possibility of overlapping with other strategies for teamwork.

12 

 

The relationship between the ePortfolio system and the intentions of use perhaps can be understood by the analogy of your wardrobe and the items you want to pick from your wardrobe for a particular intended look for yourself. Appropriate university-controlled and student-controlled information on the ePortfolio system can be retrieved and organized by students (usually under guidance from the University, programmes and/or teachers) for purposes that can include showing evidence that they have learned (assessment), presenting and showcasing their capabilities to potential employers or clients (presentation and CV), reflecting upon and planning for learning at various stages of study (learning), understanding and keeping track of personal growth (personal development), and recording learning of a team (team-work). For example, the information recorded in the ‘generic learning outcomes’ component of an ePortfolio system can be used by students when they want to showcase their achievements in generic learning skills in CVs and impress their prospective future employers. Alternatively, the University may build in additional instructions and support surrounding the generic learning skills such that, when students record achievements in these areas, they are guided at the same time to be more conscious about their own learning progress. The ePortfolio then becomes a tool for assisting personal development. Similarly, the information recorded in the ‘discipline-specific programme/ course learning outcomes’ section of the ePortfolio system is likely to be used for multiple purposes as well. Firstly, students can convert some of the information recorded on the section into parts of their CV to showcase academic achievements. Secondly, it can be turned into an assessment tool by teachers for grading students based on their achievements in a set of course-level or programme-level learning outcomes. Team work can also be assessed. Other than that, it can be used for formative rather than summative purposes. Teachers, for example, can assist students to be more conscious about their academic learning through adding in reflective and/or goal-setting activities. ‘Formal academic transcripts’ and ‘formal experiential learning transcripts’ can be very useful information in students’ CVs. Alternatively, teachers may consider some of these formal records as evidence of students’ achievement of learning outcomes when they want to evaluate students’ learning or guide students to reflect on learning. In actual practice, any ePortfolio system is usually designed to be flexible so that it can achieve one or more of the functions above. Such systems can often be accessed by multiple levels of users, each given the rights to view, edit or comment at a different level: students and their peers, tutors, teachers, future employers and even the public. 5. Examples for using an ePortfolio system for different purposes 5A. For assessment 1) Objectives: Assessment ePortfolios are used to demonstrate achievement to some authority by relating evidence within the ePortfolio about performance standards defined by that authority. 2) Scope: Teacher preparing templates and examples, students uploading work over a period of time to demonstrate learning, teacher feedback and assignment of grades. 3) Example: Pre- or in-service teachers studying courses in Education are often asked to compile teaching portfolios as a form of assessment. This kind of portfolio has the advantage of showcasing the various aspects of being a teacher, and also demonstrating gains and growth over a period of time. The example below is taken from the College of Education in the University of Texas at Austin.

13 

 

Source: http://www.edb.utexas.edu/education/centers/ltc/news/2009/eportfolio/

5B. For presentation and CVs 1) Objectives: Presentation ePortfolios are used as evidence of learning or achievement to an audience in a persuasive way. Presentation ePortfolios often contain instructions about how their contents should be rendered. Presentation ePortfolios are often used to demonstrate professional qualifications. 2) Scope: Listing achievements/ qualifications (links to formal records if possible), developing a CV, revising a CV, publishing a CV, students determining who are the intended viewers (e.g. potential employers) and how they would like the information to be structured and represented. 3) Example: The student presents his language skills in his ePortfolio in the following example taken out from the City University of Hong Kong. The levels of achievement of these skills are evidenced by the media-rich student work linked to the page.

14 

 

Source: https://eportal.cityu.edu.hk/bbcswebdav/orgs/L_ePortfolio2007/Website/gallery/portfolio/anthony/8cf04a9734132302f96da8e113e80ce5.html

In the next example from the City University of Hong Kong, the student showcased not only his academic achievements but also his experiential learning.

15 

 

Source: https://eportal.cityu.edu.hk/bbcswebdav/orgs/L_ePortfolio2007/Website/gallery/portfolio/samson/template12.htm

5C. For reflecting and planning learning 1) Objectives: Learning ePortfolios are used to document, guide, and advance learning over time. They often have a prominent reflective component and may be used to promote metacognition, to plan learning, or for the integration of diverse learning experiences. Learning ePortfolios are most often developed in formal curricular contexts. 2) Scope: Learning ePortfolios can be course-level, programme-level or even university-level depending on whether students reflect on learning in individual courses, or they reflect on learning over the many years in their programme or university life. Teachers/ programmes/ university can suggest what student work should be presented and what learning outcomes should be addressed. Examples are students setting goals for academic development, originating an action plan for the achievement of academic goals, revising the action plan in the context of feedback/ discussion, writing a log (for learning or reflection), etc. 3) Example: The following ePortfolio is the work of a student attending an English course at the City University of Hong Kong. We can see that the teacher not only required students to upload work that demonstrated their English language skills into the ePortfolio (for assessment); the teacher also required students to reflect on what they had learnt in the exercise (for consolidation of learning).

16 

 

Source: https://eportal.cityu.edu.hk/bbcswebdav/orgs/L_ePortfolio2007/Website/gallery/portfolio/carbon/4D851C36257B5E0EDDF9658C638CA1C4.html

In the following example, also taken out from cases in the City University of Hong Kong, the student was required to demonstrate and reflect learning, in accordance to the expected learning outcomes of the course.

17 

 

Source: https://eportal.cityu.edu.hk/bbcswebdav/orgs/L_ePortfolio2007/Website/gallery/portfolio/fish/EL0405.html#outcomes

5D. For tracking personal development 1) Objectives: Personal development planning is 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. 2) Common activities: Programme/ university drawing students’ attention to various elements of personal development, reviewing and monitoring personal interests/ skills attained/ learning styles, students setting goals for skills development, and originating and revising action plans. 3) Example: The Hong Kong Polytechnic University has a system to facilitate whole-person development. Through going through online activities on the site, students are able to better understand and plan their social development, physical and psychological development, ethics, career development, intellectual, aesthetics and learning (summarized as ‘SPECIAL’). Activities students can do include filling in online inventories about various personal attributes, reviewing past scores on the inventories, goal setting and action plan pages, access to records of academic achievements and experiential learning with information supplied by the registry and other extra-curricular activity bodies, and formulation of personal CVs where students can freely type in entries or link to media-files and official records.

18 

 

Source: http://www.polyu.edu.hk/sao/publications/emagazine/issue91/Emag_Feb08_AL.htm

5E. For team work 1) Objectives: Team work ePortfolios are multiple owner ePortfolios used to allow more than one individual to participate in the development of content and presentation. 2) Common activities: Online group discussions, Wiki-type writing spaces, upload of media-rich information, and online spaces for readers and team members to interact. 3) Example: Students studying Journalism at CUHK used Wikipedia for a team project in building a website on the Asian Tsunami, 2004. Students collected accounts from HK residents recently returned from the disaster region and helped build a major resource, immediately available to the public, accessed by thousands. Students’ work received praise from professional journalists across the world.

19 

 

Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2004_Indian_Ocean_earthquake

6. Considerations for CUHK A comprehensive framework of the possible territories of an ePortfolio system indicates what information may be recorded in an ePortfolio system, what tools it may provide to the various stakeholders to record the information, and how the information may be retrieved and structured for various intended uses. What we need to consider for CUHK, however, is to define the scope of the CUHK ePortfolio system by picking, choosing and prioritizing functionalities that best match the needs of our students, teachers, programmes and the University as a whole. Informal visits were made to two other higher education institutions in early 2009 as part of this project – the City University of Hong Kong (CityU) and the Hong Kong Polytechnic University (HKPU), with the purpose of understanding the ePortfolio practice of those two universities. Both the CityU and HKPU have their own stages of development in formulating their own ePortfolio system. In CityU, the ePortfolio work often integrates into a course which is decided and assessed by the lecturer as part of course requirements. They seem to focus more on the assessment mode of use. Formal academic and experiential information is not recorded in the system. Their ePortfolio system has only the tools for students to produce and upload artefacts and relate them to course-level teacher-defined learning outcomes or objectives. In HKPU, the Student Affairs Office develops and maintains the institutional ePortfolio system. The system aims to help students understand, reflect on, and showcase their achievements, and make connections with experience in developing their generic competencies through university and extra-curricular activities. Their intention is to focus on personal development and presentation and CVs. Information recorded and retrievable from the system include University accredited records of students’ academic and experiential learning, as well as student-controlled learning artefacts and their descriptions of learning. Learning outcomes are restricted to the university general graduate capabilities. Programme- or course-level subject-specific learning outcomes are not catered for.

20 

 

There are no straightforward answers to the CUHK model. The strategy to be adopted is in-depth consultations and discussions among the various members of staff concerned, such as, faculty members, IT operator and registry. To make a success of developing an institutional ePortfolio system, there are at least three key factors, namely: People, Educational Leadership and Infrastructure as observed by van Tartwijk et al. (2007). Without a doubt, all these three factors would have an impact on any ePortfolio system that would be developed. It is clear that different considerations have to be made if the CUHK ePortfolio system is to aim at achieving one or more of the objectives above. In general, based on Ward and Richardson (2005), the following are key questions that institutional and technical managers, practitioners and learners need to ask in their decisions of formulating an ePortfolio system that will best match their needs: 1. Who are the target learners and what are the purposes of ePortfolios? 2. What guidance to support learners in this context will be included online or additionally? 3. What types of information are/will be owned and managed by a learner? 4. What types of information are/will be owned and managed by the institution/organisation? 5. How will learners manage information? What editing rights and facilities do/will learners need? 6. What are the privacy and ownership/stewardship policies? 7. How much space will be allocated to each learner’s PD records and digital files? How long will

a learner’s records be retained? 8. What does the system need to conform to e-learning standards? 9. What other resources do we require to run alongside, to assure effective learner support? 10. How might we evaluate efficacy? Some notes about software options are in the Appendix. These are not exhaustive but maybe a useful resource. 7. References (includes other references than those cited in this report. These additional references are included as they may be of interest to readers of this report. All were consulted in the construction of this report.)

Attwell, G. (2007). E-Portfolios – The DNA of the personal learning environment? Retrieved April 1, 2009,

from http://www.je-lks.it/en/07_02/05Art_attwell_inglese.pdf Australian Government (2008) Diploma Supplement. Retrieved October 28, 2009, from

http://tinyurl.com/yl7kggj Barker, K. C. (2006). Environmental scan: Overview of the ePortfolio in general and in the workplace

specifically. Retrieved on October 28, 2009, from http://www.futured.com/ Becta (2007). Impact study of e-portfolios on learning. Retrieved June 5, 2009, from

http://partners.becta.org.uk/upload-dir/downloads/page_documents/research/impact_study_eportfolios.doc

Berlanga, A., Sloep, P., Brouns, F., Bitter-Rijpkema, M., & Koper, R. (2008). Towards a TENCompetence ePortfolio. International Journal: Emerging Technologies in Learning, 3, 24–28.

Cambridge, D. (2005). The integrity of Electronic Portfolios in the US. A background paper for the seminar. Retrieved June 8, 2009, from http://www.montgomerycollege.edu/Departments/studevgt/onlinsts/Resources/Integrity_EPs_US.pdf

Cambridge, D. (2008). Universities as responsive learning organizations through competency-based assessment with electronic portfolios. The Journal of General Education, 57(1). 51–64.

Campus Computing Project (2004). Campus Computing Survey. Encino, CV: Campus Computing Project. Commonwealth of Australia (2008) Proposal for an Australian Higher Education Graduation Statement.

Retrieved July 16, 2009, from http://www.dest.gov.au/NR/rdonlyres/92B0B2D3-3BD2-4853-814F-0AD4E59EAC69/21652/commissionedstudies.pdf

Cotterill, S. J., Aiton, J. F., Bradley, P. M., Hammond, G. R., McDonald, A. M., & Whiten, S. (2006). A flexible component-based ePortfolio: Embedding in the Curriculum. In A. Jafari & C. Kufman (Eds.), Handbook of research on ePortfolio (pp. 292–304). Hershey: Idea Group Reference.

21 

 

Curyer, S., Leeson, J., Mason, J., & Williams, A. (2007). Developing e-portfolios for VET: Policy issues and interoperability. Retrieved April 1, 2009, from http://e-standards.flexiblelearning.net.au/docs/vet-eportfolio-report-v1-0.pdf

Dalziel, C., Challen, R., & Sutherland, S. (2006). ePortfolio in the UK: Emerging practice. In A. Jafari & C. Kufman (Eds.), Handbook of research on ePortfolio (pp. 370–379). Hershey: Idea Group Reference.

Dennis, C., Hardy, J., & White, P. (2006). Development of a model to advance the uptake of e-portfolios for undergraduates in teacher education and registered nurse preparation: An exemplar of best practice. In E. Pearson & P. Bohman (Eds.), Proceedings of ED-MEDIA 2006 (pp. 248–253). Norfolk, VA: AACE.

Emmett, D., Harper, W., & Hauville, K. (2006). Creating a strategy for the implementation of the QUT ePortfolio. In A. Jafari & C. Kufman (Eds.), Handbook of research on ePortfolio (pp. 410–419). Hershey: Idea Group Reference.

ePortfolio Consortium (2003). Electronic portfolio white paper version 1.0. Retrieved June 8, 2009, from http://www.eportconsortium.org/Uploads/whitepaperV1_0.pdf

European Commission (2009). The Diploma Supplement, Retrieved April 14, 2009, from http://ec.europa.eu/education/policies/rec_qual/recognition/diploma_en.html

European Institute for E-Learning (n.d.). European study. Retrieved April 29, 2009, from http://www.eportfolio.eu/resources/european-study/

European Institute for E-Learning (EIfEL). (2008). Welcome to ePortfolio & Digital Identity 2008. Retrieved April 1, 2009, from http://events.eife-l.org/ep2008

Goldsmith, D. J. (2007). Enhancing learning and assessment through e-Portfolio: A collaborative effort in Connecticut. New Directions for Student Services, 119, 31–42.

Gough, D., Kiwan, D., Sutcliffe, K., Simpson, D., & Hoguhton, N. (2003). A systematic map and synthesis review of the effectiveness of personal development planning for improving student learning. London: EPPICentre, Social Science Research Unit. Retrieved April 8, 2009, from http://eppi.ioe.ac.uk/EPPIWebContent/reel/review_groups/EPPI/LTSN/LTSN_June03.pdf

Grant (n.d.). Generic activity types version 2.5. Retrieved April 14, 2009, from http://zope.cetis.ac.uk/members/PDPcontent/viewActivityTypes

Gray, L. (2007). E-portfolio: an overview of JISC activity. Retrieved April 7, 2009, from http://www.jisc.ac.uk/media/documents/programmes/elearningcapital/lisa_v2.ppt

Hallam, G, Harper, W., McCowan, C., Hauville, K., McAllister, L., Creagh, T., Lee, J. V. D., Lambert, S., & Brooks, C. (2008). Australian ePortfolio Project. QUT Department of Teaching and Learning Support Services.

IMS Global Learning Consortium (2005). IMS ePortfolio Best Practice and Implementation Guide, Retrieved April 14, 2009, from http://www.imsglobal.org/ep/epv1p0/imsep_bestv1p0.html

IMS Global Learning Consortium (2009). IMS Global Learning Consortium, Retrieved April 14, 2009, from http://www.imsglobal.org/ep/

JISC InfoNet (2008) What is the Diploma Supplement? Retrieved July 16, 2009, from http://www.jiscinfonet.ac.uk/bologna-process/ds

Johnson, G. & Raman, J.R. (2007). E-Portfolios: A collaboration between student affairs and faculty. New Directions for Student Services, 119, 17–29.

Lee, K.-C. (2001). Teaching materials and methods of comprehensive activity fields. Taipei: Shin-Lee. Lumsden, J. A. (2007). Development and implementation of an e-Portfolio as a university-wide program. New

Directions for Student Services, 119, 43–63. Madden, T. (2007). Supporting student E-portfolios – A Physical Sciences practice guide. London: Higher

Education Academy Physical Sciences Centre. Retrieved April 29, 2009, from http://www.heacademy.ac.uk/physsci/home/projects/jisc_del/eportfolio

McAllister, L., Hallam, G., & Harper, W. (2008). The ePortfolio as a tool for lifelong learning: Contextualising Australian practice. Paper presented at the International Lifelong Learning Conference, Yeppoon, Queensland.

Paoletti J. (2006). ePortfolio thinking: The challenge of the public research university. In A. Jafari & C. Kufman (Eds.), Handbook of research on ePortfolio (pp. 565–573). Hershey, PA: Idea Group Reference.

Precision Consultancy (2007). Graduate employability skills report. Retrieved April 1, 2009, from http://tinyurl.com/cjr3qc

Quality Assurance Agency (2000). Policy statement on a progress file for Higher Education. Retrieved April 29, 2009, from http://www.qaa.ac.uk/academicinfrastructure/progressFiles/archive/policystatement/default.asp

Quality Assurance Agency (2009). Personal development planning: guidance for institutional policy and practice in higher education. Retrieved July 3, 2009, from http://www.qaa.ac.uk/academicinfrastructure/progressfiles/guidelines/pdp/pdpguide.pdf

22 

 

Quality Assurance Council (2008). Report of a Quality Audit of the Chinese University of Hong Kong. Retrieved June 5, 2009, from http://www.cuhk.edu.hk/v6/en/teaching/images/qac_cuhkreport.pdf

Randell, J. (1999). The QAA: developing quality outcomes, developing students. Retrieved 9 June 2009, from http://www.nottingham.ac.uk/padshe/conference/randall.htm

Ravet, S. (2007). E-Portfolio for all. Retrieved October 28, 2009, from http://www.eife-l.org/activities/campaigns/

Sakai Foundation (2009). Learn more the Sakai CLE. Retrieved October 28, 2009, from http://sakaiproject.org/portal/site/sakai-home/page/41344e39-89f5-40cd-a153-2370382419d9

Singh, O., & Ritzhaupt, A. D. (2006). Student perspective of organizational uses of eportfolios in higher education. In E. Pearson & P. Bohman (Eds.), Proceedings of ED-MEDIA 2006 (pp. 1717–1722). Norfolk, VA: AACE.

Strivens, J. (2007). A survey of e-pdp and e-portfolio practice in UK higher education. The Higher Education Academy. Retrieved October 28, 2009, from http://www.heacademy.ac.uk/resources/detail/id631_survey_of_epdp_and_eportfolio_practice

Sun, I. S. (2003). Influences of mechanisms of Web portfolio assessment on learning outcomes and behaviors. Unpublished Masters thesis. National Taiwan University.

Tosh, D., Light, T.P., Fleming, K., & Haywood, J. (2005). Engagement with electronic portfolios: Challenges from the student perspective. Canadian Journal of Learning and Technology, 31(3). Retrieved 22 May2009, from http://www.cjlt.ca/index.php/cjlt/article/view/97/91

UK Europe Unit (2006). Guide to The Diploma Supplement. Universities UK. Retrieved 9 June 2009, from http://www.europeunit.ac.uk/sites/europe_unit2/resources/Guide%20to%20the%20Diploma%20Supplement.pdf

Universities UK, Universities Scotland, the Standing Conference of Principals, the Learning and Teaching Support Network and Quality Assurance Agency (2001). Guidelines for HE progress files. Retrieved 1 April 2009, from http://www.qaa.ac.uk/Publications/InformationAndGuidance/Pages/Guidelines-for-HE-Progress-Files.aspx

University of Glasgow (n.d.) Personal Development Planning Action Plan: 2007-2008. Retrieved 3 July 2009, from http://senate.gla.ac.uk/academic/policies/PDP_Action_Plan.pdf

van Tartwijk, J., Driessen, E., van der Vleuten, C., & Stokking, K.(2007). Factors influencing the introduction of portfolios. Quality in Higher Education, 13(1), 69–79.

Ward, R., & Richardson, H. (2005a), Getting what you want from e-portfolio systems: A starting point for technical developers of e-Portfolio systems in HE. Retrieved 15 July 2009, from http://www.jisc.ac.uk/uploaded_documents/Guidance_tech.doc

Ward, R., & Richardson, H. (2005b). Getting what you want: Implementing Personal Development Planning through e-portfolio. Retrieved 3 July 2009, from http://www.jisc.ac.uk/uploaded_documents/Guidance_final.doc

Wickersham, L. E., & Chambers, S. M. (2006). ePortfolios: using technology to enhance and assess student learning. Education, 126(4), 738–747.

8. Acknowledgement Editing by Professor Andy Curtis, Graduate School of Education, Anaheim University, California, USA, is gratefully acknowledged.

23 

 

9. Appendix: Notes about software options Software options Madden (2007) suggested that there are three main options for preparing an ePortfolio system: in-house solution, commercial software and open source software. Factors affecting the choice include: the purpose of the ePortfolio, costs, level of in-house technical expertise and institutional traditions. Strivens (2007) conducted a survey of e-pdp and ePortfolio practice in 71 separate institutions, of which 66 were UK HEIs and five were FE colleges, and one overseas university UK higher education. She found that

the most frequently cited (12) was the Blackboard ePortfolio which is bundled with the content system (Blackboard CS). Next most popular was PebbelPAD (developed at the University of Wolverhampton) with 6 mentions. ePET (developed at the University of Newcastle) received 4 mentions … RAPID (developed at Loughborough University) was mentioned twice … 10 other institutions claimed that their own internally-developed system was an e-portfolio. (Strivens, 2007, p. 6)

Although the samples reported are small, the above description outlines a pattern in the use of software in the UK system. Technical challenges Whatever system is chosen, it has to be user-friendly, sufficiently flexible for expansion and straightforward for beginners (Tosh, Light, Fleming & Haywood, 2005). Support and training for staff and students should not be underestimated when the system is introduced (Wickersham & Chambers, 2006). Consideration should also be given to the interoperability issue. It is generally recognized that the IMS ePortfolio specification is a solution to tackle interoperability. It is used to provide international standards for learning technology that make ePortfolios interoperable across different systems and institutions. The IMS ePortfolio specification:

supports the advancement of lifelong learning important to many government initiatives; makes exchanging portfolios from school to work transitions easier; allows educators and institutions to better track competencies; and enhances the learning experience and improves employee development.

(IMS Global Learning Consortium, 2009) The IMS ePortfolio Best Practice and Implementation Guide (IMS Global Learning Consortium, 2005) provides technical guidelines for setting up an ePortfolio system with a common data format specifically catering for the needs of distribution and migration. Curyer, Leeson, Mason and Williams (2007) commented that, although the IMS data model is one component required for interoperability, further agreements need to be made on communication method, web services, meaning of content, common vocabularies or profiles, etc. Besides this, practical issues, such as who has permission to access the ePortfolio, how long the institution will host the portfolio, and how to maintain the security of the ePortfolio are also technical areas to be addressed. Below are a few descriptions of software solutions. Two examples are given under each category of in-house solutions, commercial packages and open-source software.

24 

 

In-house solutions RAPID Progress File The RAPID project was conducted at Loughborough University, UK, in 2000. It “is a web-based PDP tool that enables the user to: record achievement, create a personal portfolio, generate a CV, audit skill competence, develop skills and personal attributes and document evidence of competence”. The software is available to all UK-based HEIs at no direct charge under a licensing arrangement. Source: http://rapidprojects.lboro.ac.uk/progress.html ePET Portfolio The software was first developed at Newcastle University, UK, in 2002. It can be used in different contexts, and supports ‘value added’ features such as sharing, searching and cross-referencing. ‘Generic’ tools were used to support PDP, and course administrators can create new tools such as simple web forms to incorporate into the system. Source: http://www.eportfolios.ac.uk/ePET Commercial packages Blackboard ePortfolio The software is from Blackboard, US. The makers of Blackboard claim that the software can support the construction of personalized learning experiences. The software can enable users to collect ePortfolio artefacts, create a personal portfolio, add, share, view, download and comment on ePortfolios. The design is a part of the content management system. Source: http://www.blackboard.com/Teaching-Learning/Learn-Platform.aspx PebblePad PebblePad was originally developed at the University of Wolverhampton, UK, in 2004. It is a Personal Learning System that helps users create records of learning, achievement and aspiration and has a reflective structure underpinning all of the core elements. It supports learning in an institutional context and deals with the following aspects: Assessment (formal and informal), Advancement (promotion or transition), Appraisal (self, peer), Accreditation (professional bodies), Application (course, job, funding) and Articulation (informative story telling). Source: http://www.pebblelearning.co.uk/ Open source software Sakai The Sakai Project began in 2004 when Stanford, Michigan, Indiana, MIT and Berkeley, US, began building a common Courseware Management System and now is the choice of over 160 educational institutions. The software enables users to design, publish, share and view portfolios of work. It can create structures to help users to reflect on their learning and development. Summative feedback and export report facilities are also included in the system. Source: http://sakaiproject.org/portal/site/sakai-home/page/7447bd72-e4a8-4775-8d73-12bfd4706e5f Mahara Funded by New Zealand’s Tertiary Education Commission’s e-learning Collaborative Development Fund, Mahara was a collaborative venture in 2006, involving Massey University, Auckland University of Technology, The Open Polytechnic of New Zealand, and Victoria University of Wellington. It enables users to collect, reflect on and share achievements and development online. It features a weblog, résumé builder and social networking system, connecting users and creating online learner communities. The system can be used with Moodle. The software was the winner of New Zealand Open Source Awards 2008. Source: http://mahara.org/