This document discusses upgrading ePortfolios using Web 2.0 concepts for formative development. The author conducted design-based research using an open-source LMS platform incorporating ePortfolio features, social networking, and classroom group sites. A survey of 20 courses found that most students found the system easy to use and helpful for learning. Challenges included technical issues, navigation, and lack of engagement once outside the classroom. Students wanted clearer communication and opportunities to share work and get feedback to improve learning. Future research should expand participation and assess cognitive reflection and growth over time.

1. Upgrading
ePortfoliosUsing 2.0 Concepts for Formative
Development
Josh Yavelberg
Josh.Yavelberg@flyingcloudsolutions.com

2. ePortfolios

3. What do I mean by 2.0?

4. Formative Feedback

5. Formative Feedback

6. Online
Learning

7. Overview / Critique of the ePortfolio field
Apps or Sites
PebblePad
Others?

8. Is there learning?

9. Method
• Design Based Research
• Developed an LMS platform using Elgg incorporating
ePortfolio features, social networking functions, and
classroom group sites
• Developed for one instructors courses and used for over a
year as a pilot incorporating 20 different courses.
• Survey delivered to students to gauge perception:
• Mix of Likert scale and open ended responses

10. Yavelfolio
• http://youtu.be/8eda8l0qDaA

11. Survey Results
Ease of Use
I could not
navigate, find
information o
keep up with
what was
going on
I had an easy
time keeping
up and
navigating the
system
Group Pages (online
classroom page)
The
classroom
page was
confusing
I found the
classroom
page to be
helpful and
easy to use

12. Survey Results
I never used
the profile
and don't
understand
or care to use
the features
I found the
profiles to be
useful and
plan to use the
features in the
future
Profile Pages
I never
logged
into the
site
I logged in
frequently
Login and Use

13. Survey Results
The
layout for
the site
was ugly,
cluttered
and
confusing
The layout
for the site
felt
familiar,
pleasing,
and easy
to navigate
Layout
I did not and
will not use
a site such as
this to
communicat
e with
classmates
and share
my work
I used the site
and wish to
use the site
throughout
my school to
communicate
with students
and faculty to
share my
work and
reflections
Communication and Networking

14. Survey Results
• 72% would continue to use this service or a similar
one to maintain a profile and communicate with
classmates
• 27.6% Currently use an online service to showcase
their work: Blogger, Google+, Tumblr, Facebook and
Deviant Art
• 76% believed the online components to be helpful to
their learning or engagement in the course.

15. Survey Results
What issues did
students have?
• Technical
• Confusing process at first
• Layout led to troublesome
navigation
• Need clearer course
expectations
• Respected instructor
feedback and wanted
more
• Want mobile accessability
• General Internet
accessibility issues or
forgot to sign in after
leaving class.

16. Survey Results
What did students want to see added?
• Clearer “wall” component (Open Gallery)
• Instant Messaging
• Online tutoring, office hours, or posted
synchronous study sessions
• Video Tutorials (even though they were there)

17. Survey Results
Did the online component aid in learning
or engagement?
• Allowed for communication, sharing, and
critique
• Repository for course information, assignments,
and grades (organization)
• Seeing other’s work was inspirational and helped
with expectations.

18. Survey Results

19. Survey Limitations
0
0.5
1
1.5
2
2.5
3
3.5
4
4.5
5
Category 1 Category 2 Category 3 Category 4
Series 1

20. Yavelfolio
Observations and benefits:
• Students interact across courses
• Feedback is directly linked to artifacts allowing users to
recall assessments
• Privacy features allow for custom sharing
• Separate from informal social networks (Facebook, etc.)
allowing for more academic discourse
• Classroom LMS and ePortfolios combined into one
system rather than using multiple platforms

21. Yavelfolio
Challenges:
• Language
• Engagement
• Students don’t want to do it once they leave the physical
classroom
• Needs to expand with more faculty involvement to allow
portfolios to evolve and networks to grow over time
• Open Source Environment
• SPAM
• Getting users to engage in the platform with the understanding
of the advantages of ePortfolios
• ePortfolios need to be integrated into the broader curriculum with
broader formative and cumulating in a summative review process.

22. Future Research and
Development
• Extend use to be inclusive or more faculty, broader subject
areas and longitudinal tracking
• Assess growth and depth of cognitive reflection
• Incorporate rubrics and other assessment strategies
• Interview the outliers or those who don’t participate in the
survey
• Multi-version editing
• Clean development for better integration and customization of
tools
• Allowing both private formative portfolio and publically
sharable summative portfolios

23. Contact
Josh Yavelberg
202-276-1780
Josh.yavelberg@flyingcloudsolutions.com
Workshops Archive:
www.flyingcloudsolutions.com

24. Works Cited
Ackerman, D. (1989). Criteria for successful curriculum integration. Interdisciplinary Curriculum:
Design and Implementation (pp. 25-38). Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and
Curriculum Development.
Anderson, T. (2004). Toward a theory of online learning. Theory and Practice of Online Learning
(2nd ed., pp. 33–60). Athabasca University. Retrieved from
http://cde.athabascau.ca/online_book/ch2.html
Barcoul-Burlinson, I. (2006). ePortfolio: constructing learning. In A. Jafari & Kaurman, C
(Ed.), Handbook of Research on ePortfolios (pp. 168-179). Hershey, PA: Idea Group Publ.
Barrett, H. (2006, June). Using Electronic Portfolios for Formative/Classroom-based Assessment.
Belgrad, S., Burke, K., & Fogarty, R. (2008). The portfolio connection : student work linked to
standards (3rd ed.). Thousand Oaks CA: Corwin Press.
Buffington, M. (2008). What is web 2.0 and how can it further art education? Art
Education, 61(3), 36-41.
Butler, P. (2010). E-Portfolios, Pedagogy and Implementation in Higher Education:
Considerations from the Literature. In N. Buzzetto-More (Ed.), The E-Portfolio Paradigm:
Informing, Educating, Assessing, and Managing with E-Portfolios (pp. 109-139). Santa
Rosa, California: Informing Science Press.
Cambridge, D. (2008). Audience, integrity, and the living document: eFolio Minnesota and
lifelong and lifewide learning with ePortfolios. Computers & Education, 51(3), 1227-1246.
Cambridge, D. (2009). Electronic portfolios 2.0 : emergent research on implementaton and
impact (1st ed.). Sterling VA: Stylus Pub.
Cambridge, D. (2010). Eportfolios for lifelong learning and assessment (1st ed.). San
Francisco CA: Jossey-Bass.
Chen, H. (2009). Using portfolios to support lifelong and lifewide learning. In D. Cambridge, B.
Cambridge, & K. Yancey (Eds.), Electronic Portfolios 2.0 (pp. 29-39). Sterling, VA: Stylus.
Clark, J. E., & Eynon, B. (2009). E-portfolios at 2.0, surveying the field. AAC&U Peer
Review, 18-23.
Davis-Soylu, H., Peppler, K., & Hickey, D. (2011). Assessment assemblage: advancing portfolio
practice through the assesment staging theory. Studies in Art Education, 53(3), 213-224.
Dillon, S. & Brown, A. (2006). The art of ePortfolios: insights from the creative arts experience. In
A. Jafari & Kaufman, C (Ed.), Handbook of Research on ePortfolios (pp. 102-111).
Hershey, PA: Idea Group Publ.
DiMarco, J. (2006). Web portfolio design and applications. Hershey, PA : Idea Group Publ.
Doig, B., Illsley, B., McLuckie, J., and Parsons, R. (2006). Using ePortfolios to enhance reflective
learning and development. In A. Jafari & Kaufman, C (Ed.), Handbook of Research on
ePortfolios (pp. 102-111). Hershey, PA: Idea Group Publ.
Duderstadt, J., Atkins, D., Van Houweling, D. (2002). Higher education in the digital age:
technology issues and strategies for American colleges and universities. Westport CT:
Praeger.
Fitzsimmons, D. (2008). Digital portfolios in visual arts classrooms. Art Education, 61(5), 47-53.
Flanigan, E., & Amirian, S. (2006). ePortfolios: pathway from classroom to career. In A. Jafari &
Kaufman, C (Ed.), Handbook of Research on ePortfolios (pp. 102-111). Hershey, PA: Idea
Group Publ.
Goodfellow, R. & Lea, M. (2007). Challenging e-learning in the university. New York: Open
University Press.

25. Works Cited Continued
.
Greenberg, G. (2006). Can we talk? Electronic portfolios as collaborative learning spaces. In A. Jafari & Kaurman, C (Ed.), Handbook of Research on ePortfolios
(pp. 1-14). Hershey, PA: Idea Group Publ.
Hickerson, C. & Preston, M. (2006). Transition to ePortfolios: a case study of student attitudes. In A. Jafari & Kaurman, C (Ed.), Handbook of Research on
ePortfolios (pp. 1-14). Hershey, PA: Idea Group Publ.
Hills, H. (2003). Individual preferences in e-learning. Burlington, VT: Gower Publishing Co.
Jenkins, H. (2006). Confronting the challenges of participatory culture: media education for the 21st century. Chicago: MacArthur Foundation.
Katz, R., & EDUCAUSE (Association). (2008). The tower and the cloud: higher education in the age of cloud computing. [Boulder CO]: EDUCAUSE.
Ito, M., Horst, H., Bittanti, M., Boyd, D., Herr-Stephenson, B., Lange, P., Pascoe, C. J., et al. (2008). Living and Learning with New Media: Summary of Findings
from the Digital Youth Project. The John D. and Catherine T. MacArthur Foundation.
Latta, M. M., Buck, G., & Beckenhauer, A. (2007). Formitive assessment requires artistic vision. International Journal of Education & the Arts, 8(4), 1–23.
Landow, G. (1997). Hypertext 2.0: The convergence of contemporary critical theory and technology. Baltimore: The Johns Hopkins University Press.
McLuhan, M. (1964). Understanding Media: The Extensions of Man. London: Rutledge & Kegan Paul.
Nespor, J. (2006). Technology and the politics of instruction. Mahwah N.J.: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Katz, R., & EDUCAUSE (Association). (2008). The
tower and the cloud: higher education in the age of cloud computing. Boulder, CO: EDUCAUSE.
Olofsson, A. D., Lindberg, J. O., & Hauge, T. E. (2011). Blogs and the design of reflective peer-to-peer technology-enhanced learning and formative assessment.
Campus-Wide Information Systems, 28(3), 183–194. doi:10.1108/10650741111145715
Prensky, M. (2001). Digital natives, digital immigrants. On the Horizon, 9(5).
Riedinger, B. (2006). Mining for meaning: Teaching students how to reflect. In A. Jafari & Kaufman, C (Ed.), Handbook of Research on ePortfolios (pp. 102-
111). Hershey, PA: Idea Group Publ.
Rickards, W. H., & Guilbault, L. (2009). Studying student reflection in an elecronic portfolio environment. In D. Cambridge, B. Cambridge, & K. Yancey
(Eds.), Electronic Portfolios 2.0 (pp. 17-28). Sterling, VA: Stylus.
Rogers, E. (2003). Diffusion of innovations (5th ed.). New York: Free Press.
Sherman, G. (2006). Instructional roles of electronic portfolios. In A. Jafari & Kaurman, C (Ed.), Handbook of Research on ePortfolios (pp. 1-14). Hershey, PA:
Idea Group Publ.
Stevenson, H. (2006). Using ePortfolios to foster peer assessment, critical thinking, and collaboration. In A. Jafari & Kaurman, C (Ed.), Handbook of Research on
ePortfolios (pp. 112-124). Hershey, PA: Idea Group Publ.
Stieger, S., & Burger, C. (2010). Let’s Go Formative: Continuous Student Ratings with Web 2.0 Application Twitter. Cyberpsychology, Behavior, and Social
Networking, 13(2), 163–167. doi:10.1089/cyber.2009.0128
Tosh, D., Werdmuller, B., Chen, H., Penny Light, T., & Haywood, J. (2006). The learning landscape: a conceptual framework for ePortfolios. In A. Jafari &
Kaurman, C (Ed.), Handbook of Research on ePortfolios (pp. 24-32). Hershey, PA: Idea Group Publ.
Vygotsky, L. (1978). Mind in Society: Development of Higher Psychological Processes. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Yancey, K. B. (2009). Reflection and electronic portfolios. In D. Cambridge, B. Cambridge, & K. Yancey (Eds.), Electronic Portfolios 2.0 (pp. 5-16).
Sterling, VA: Stylus.
Yang, Y.-F. (2010). Students’ reflection on online self-correction and peer review to improve writing. Computers & Education, 55(3), 1202-1210

26. Image Credits
The University of Edinburgh College of Science
and Engineering. ePortfolio.
http://www.scieng.ed.ac.uk/LTStrategy/images/w
hat_is_portfolio.gif
Website Boston (2011). Web 2.0 Web Design
Most Used Techniques:
http://blog.websiteboston.com/wp-
content/uploads/2012/05/Web-2.0-Style-Web-
Design.jpg
Fabriziopgcap (2011, December 7). The context
of assessment and feedback (research for the
action larning set report)
http://fabriziopgcap.files.wordpress.com/2011/12/
stop-feedback.jpg
Tuttle, H. (2011, March 11). Students vote to
improve- Formative assessment. Education with
Technology Harry G. Tuttle. Retrieved from:
http://eduwithtechn.wordpress.com/2011/03/11/st
udents-vote-to-improve-formative-assessment/