ePortfolios have been promoted for fostering and assessing general education for almost three decades now and are recognized by the American Association of Colleges and Universities (AAC&U) as a high impact practice (e.g., Watson et al., 2016; Kuh, 2008, 2017). This high impact practice has been applied in varied settings. For example, Appling et al. (2015) documented natural science competencies through ePortfolios. Salt Lake Community College implemented ePortfolios to assess general education (Hubert, 2016). Davis (2017) and Hubert (2016) agreed that ePortfolios support general education by facilitating integration and assessment of general education outcomes. Commenting on why ePortfolios are a powerful learning practice, Kuh (2017, p. 9) argued:
[The ePortfolio] is an intentionally designed instructional approach that … prompts students to periodically reflect on and deepen what they are learning and helps them connect and make sense of their various experiences inside and outside the classroom that – taken together – add up to more than the sum of their parts.
Appling et al. (2015) shared this perspective but noted that when these values of integration and assessment are not shared with students, ePortfolios become less effective. We suggest that acknowledging the threshold concepts required for effectively using ePortfolios and addressing the bottlenecks that interfere with implementation help create more effective implementation of ePortfolios.
1 Literature Review
In 2015, Ring et al. discussed using ePortfolios for general education assessment, concluding they are a valuable measure of student learning outcomes at the university level. Nevertheless, Ring et al. (2015) agreed with Davis (2017) when they observed: “that student understanding of and appreciation
A major reason for this frustration is that ePortfolios are an emerging genre. Joyes, Gray, and Hartnell-Young (2010) suggested ePortfolios are disruptive to “pedagogic, technological, and institutional perspectives because they tend not to fit in existing systems” (p. 23). More than a decade later, these challenges to existing systems still need to be addressed as ePortfolios are taken up by institutions and individual instructors (Berbegal et al., 2021; Hoven et al., 2021). Despite the disruptive nature of ePortfolios, administrators and faculty are drawn by the potential of ePortfolios to enhance student learning. Recognizing this potential, ePortfolios have been identified as a high-impact practice by AAC&U (2022). Watson et al. (2016) referred to ePortfolios as a meta-high impact practice that encompasses other high-impact practices. As a genre, ePortfolios are “more explicitly collaborative, representing achievement, reflections, goals, and plans” (Cambridge, 2010, p. 157). Nevertheless, even if research suggests that ePortfolios are a high-impact practice, it remains challenging to implement them for key and consistent reasons.
Describing ePortfolios as a high impact practice implies certain roles for ePortfolio creators and readers, which are clarified by the Conference on College Composition and Communication (CCCC) position statement, “Principles and Practices in Electronic Portfolios” (2015). The readers or audiences for the ePortfolio can include other instructors as well as assessors, employers, and entities that issue credentials (CCCC, 2015). Often ePortfolio creators assume their readers understand how to understand this new genre. ePortfolio creators may arrive at this assumption because their instructors often assume that students will be adept in creating the ePortfolio to convey their meaning and so do not provide enough instruction. Clark (2016) asserted that genres can shape students’ identities as they take on the expectations of the discourse community in creating the genre. As creators of an emerging genre, students can play a vital role in establishing the norms associated with ePortfolios. Mueller and Bair (2018) documented the misalignment of an idealized ePortfolio as
We argue that this problem of alignment and implementation can be avoided if administrators, faculty, and staff are made aware of threshold concepts and bottlenecks associated with ePortfolio learning and implementation. Eynon and Gambino (2017) outlined key threshold concepts for ePortfolios: “ePortfolio practice done well makes students’ learning visible and supports reflection, integration, and deep learning” (p. 3). This proposition explicitly identified threshold concepts, as outlined by Meyer and Land (2003, 2006): understanding these concepts creates a significant shift in how instructors and students understand the ePortfolio’s transformative experience. Once one learns reflective skills through the ePortfolio process, the change of perspective is irreversible. Instructors must be aware of threshold concepts associated with ePortfolios, so they can help their students. In addition to threshold concepts, there are key bottlenecks that make ePortfolio implementation difficult if instructors do not address them explicitly and early in the process.
2 Threshold Concepts and ePortfolios
Meyer and Land (2006) conceptualized threshold concepts to describe how learners transition from novices to experts. They suggested that each discipline has foundational concepts, which, once mastered, change the way the learner views the world: “Thus, if accepted by the individual student as a valid way of interpreting the world, it fundamentally changes their way of thinking about their own choices” (Meyer & Land, 2006, p. 6, original emphasis). Students then build on their new conceptual understanding to delve even deeper into the discipline. These relationships between threshold concepts are important in mastering disciplinary discourse. Land et al. (2005) called these connections “threshold conceptions”. Disciplinary experts use threshold conceptions to link threshold concepts, while novices struggle with understanding both the concepts and connections. Although most research on threshold concepts revolves around disciplinary knowledge, some research has examined threshold concepts for ePortfolios (e.g., Joyes, Gray, & Hartnell-Young, 2010; Lewis, 2017). These researchers posited that there are ways of thinking about and implementing ePortfolios that constitute foundation knowledge of the practice.
[ePortfolios are] rooted in a complex pedagogy, and its potential can only be realised if the processes underlying this pedagogy (e.g., reflection) are properly understood by advocates and executed by users (iii).
If instructors do not articulate the ePortfolio’s purpose and audience or facilitate effective reflective practices, then ePortfolios will not provide the integrative experience that distinguishes them as a high impact practice.
In addition to identifying threshold concepts, it is important to recognize barriers to learning these concepts, known as learning bottlenecks. Middendorf and Pace (2004) described learning bottlenecks in their “Decoding the Disciplines” model where the first step in facilitating learning is “[to i]dentify a place in the course where many students encounter obstacles (bottlenecks) to mastering the material” (p. 3). Lotter, Harwood, and Bonner (2006) noted that bottlenecks are as much a problem for instructors learning a new approach as they are for students. They pointed out, “[t]eachers’ beliefs are known to influence how teachers respond to professional development” (p. 186). A learning bottleneck that is frequent and not specific to a discipline, such as learning a new technology, will be a problem for instructors as well as students (Mueller & Bair, 2021). For example, Pelnar and Cameron (2021) described how bottlenecks can involve implied ways of thinking about a problem that teachers must make explicit. Technology and time to create ePortfolios have been identified as limiting factors in student learning and instructor implementation (Abd-Whab et al., 2016; Douglas et al., 2019; Kahn, 2019; Lam, 2021; Hornor, 2021).
In our research on ePortfolios, it is apparent that students, instructors, and employers come to ePortfolios from different perspectives. Each stakeholder must negotiate threshold concepts and bottlenecks to communicate effectively. We found in our research that the threshold concepts needed to
3 Case Study
We interviewed a convenience sample of ten instructors, ten students, and ten employers to understand how they conceive of and use ePortfolios. We selected ten of each population, so no one group would dominate. Participants were interviewed in settings that allowed us to share two sample ePortfolios created as capstone projects in a four-year business degree program. We screen captured and audio recorded participants as they read and discussed the ePortfolios in a “thinking aloud method” (Lewis, 1982). Participants were also asked open-ended questions about their experiences with ePortfolios such as how they might use ePortfolios, in what contexts, and for what purposes they might use them or why they might not use them.
We used NVivo for a thematic data analysis identifying threshold concepts and bottlenecks (Braun & Clarke, 2006). We found through our study that audience, purpose, navigation, and reflection were threshold concepts needed for effective ePortfolio use. The processes needed for effective ePortfolio development require greater attention to audience needs so that the portfolio achieves its purpose. Two bottleneck issues that challenged faculty, students, and employers were technology and time.
Threshold concepts that fundamentally changed how participants understood ePortfolios were audience, purpose, navigation, and reflection. To make sense of the two sample ePortfolios, participants needed to envision themselves as the intended reader. The two sample portfolios were created for instructors in a four-year business degree program and potential employers. As instructor participants read the ePortfolios, they tried to understand them as course assignments. A mathematics professor illustrated this when he said, “So, I wonder when I read these how the assignment was written because what is it that the instructor was after?” Knowing this context would help the instructors make sense of the ePortfolios. A business professor voiced the confusion many employers felt when he said, “Are ePortfolios coming out of universities? It’s not something that experienced professionals use all that much”. The employers in our study had not seen ePortfolios before and struggled to understand what they were. One employer noted his frustration when he said, “The people are
Closely aligned with the audience is the ePortfolio’s purpose. As the mathematics instructor suggested, knowing why an ePortfolio was created will help readers better understand them. The employers immediately envisioned them as a genre that might be used in the hiring process, which they did not think would be efficient. There were two exceptions to this perception. One person who worked at Children’s Hospital thought they would be useful for annual reviews and another who worked at the Environmental Protection Agency thought they would help select interns. Instructors and students envisioned the ePortfolios as class assignments. Instructors discussed how they might be taught and evaluated while students discussed how the samples might be revised. In each case, the reader framed their reading of the ePortfolio in terms of their own relationship to portfolios and did not read through the frame of any other potential audiences. For an ePortfolio to be effective, the creator’s intended purpose needs to be clear, otherwise, the reader creates their own imagined purpose.
In terms of navigation, WordPress was new to many participants, and they did not know how to navigate the sites. In one of the samples, the menu was not clearly labeled, and participants needed prompting to find it. Once participants found the menus, they proceeded to review the posted items from the top to the bottom and from left to right. Although ePortfolios can be read in any order, the participants defaulted to a print-based order. This means that ePortfolio creators need to understand this reading inclination, so they place valuable information in places readers are most likely to find it.
Another key threshold concept in ePortfolios is “folio thinking”, an approach facilitating learning through collection of work and reflection on that work over time (Backlund et al., 2001; Chen & Black, 2010; Chen & Patel, 2018). Instructors we interviewed liked how reflective writing could be used to show how students perceive the connections between their experiences and program/course outcomes. They believed ePortfolios could be useful to promote integrative learning. They also mentioned how ePortfolios could be introduced in first-year courses and built throughout a program ending in a capstone ePortfolio. Employers and students, on the other hand, did not find the reflective
Students had a variety of experiences with ePortfolios. Some students had created ePortfolios in several classes while others had made one for a particular class. Most said they created the ePortfolio because it was assigned, and they followed the assignment guidelines as they uploaded artifacts, wrote reflections, and made design choices. They saw instructors as the primary audience for their ePortfolios. Some students enjoyed personalizing their ePortfolios, but most students seemed more interested in meeting the instructors’ expectations. Although faculty believed one purpose of the ePortfolios was to increase engagement, these students viewed the purpose as meeting another class/program requirement. This mismatch of understanding the purpose of the portfolio and the reflective assignments could result in ePortfolios that do not realize the benefits of the practice.
4 Addressing Threshold Concepts for ePortfolios
The first threshold concept that needs to be addressed is identifying the ePortfolio’s purpose. ePortfolios can have broad and sometimes conflicting purposes such as a repository of class activities, an integrative learning opportunity, or a contextualization of skills and knowledge. As stakeholders use ePortfolios, they need to consider the purpose the ePortfolio serves. Instructors need to be clear about what they think an ePortfolio is and share that vision with students since ePortfolios meet a variety of purposes for each stakeholder group. For instance, employers may find that ePortfolios can have a place in their hiring practices. Students may find ePortfolios help them integrate their learning and begin to develop a professional identity.
To facilitate the purpose, educators need to determine how the ePortfolio will support course/program outcomes. ePortfolios are a high-impact practice when implemented well, but are perceived as just another burden on faculty, staff, and students when the purpose is not clear. ePortfolios should be used in courses and programs when they promote the course/program’s goals. When the relationship between the course/programs’ goals have been identified, it
Identifying threshold concepts is not an easy task for designing effective educational development programs. As Land et al. (2005), and later Hofer, Hanick, and Townsend (2018) pointed out, threshold concepts and conceptions take time to learn. In some instances, the troublesome nature of threshold concepts requires learners to work through ways of thinking that challenge their current ways of thinking. This challenge to their way of seeing the world may result in a liminal state where learners are between stages. A professional development program should provide support to instructors so that they may help learners through that process. One strategy is simplifying the threshold concepts to help learners understand them. However, Meyer and Shanahan (cited in Land et al., 2005, p. 61) indicated that simplification leads to learners adopting the simplified, rote version and never actually achieving a real understanding of the threshold concepts. In this case, professional development needs to help faculty work through the issues of teaching for an effective portfolio in addition to learning what students should put into them.
Scholtz, Tse, and Lithgow (2017) suggested ePortfolios need to be aligned with course outcomes. When faculty do not align ePortfolios or utilize best practices in ePortfolio implementation, students will not value the ePortfolio and may view it as busy work. Ring et al. (2015) found this to be true and observed:
many students, by the time they are close to graduation, have sadly long forgotten their general education courses and must now scramble to finish their ePortfolios [for graduation]. (p. 327)
Students can value ePortfolios if the connection between the ePortfolio and the learning endeavor is clear, but it becomes, as Ring et al. (2015) noted, merely “a hoop that must be jumped through in order to graduate” if the connection is lost.
Eynon and Gambino (2017), provided guidelines for educational development based on their experiences with the Connect to Learning Project, which focused on how reflection facilitates integrative learning (p.41). This project followed ePortfolio implementation at 24 higher education institutions. They argued, “integrative social pedagogy is the core of ePortfolio ‘done well’” (p. 38). Institutions adopting ePortfolios implemented a variety of faculty development programs such as workshops, teaching and learning circles, sustained pedagogy seminars, online learning modules, and mini grants. Eynon and Gambino (2017) proposed that:
building on faculty expertise, generating community, changing campus culture, attracting administrative support, linking to the reward structure, and consciously attending to issues related to systemic institutional transformation are best practices that can strengthen professional development related to ePortfolio. (p. 78)
They suggested that facilitators of educational development activities use an integrative social pedagogical approach and have ePortfolio experiences. In this way, instructors can internalize the threshold concepts necessary for successful ePortfolio implementation: a clear definition of the purpose and audience for the ePortfolio and the necessity of reflections that discuss the significance of the ePortfolios’ artifacts.
5 Addressing Bottlenecks in Learning to Use ePortfolios
Two bottlenecks that interfered with participants’ understanding of ePortfolios were technology and time. As ePortfolios have been adopted, several platforms have been identified: proprietary, open source, and institutionally developed. For the participants in our study, unfamiliarity with ePortfolio platforms was a bottleneck that interfered with participants’ facility with ePortfolios. In their responses, employers stated they were unclear about how they would access the ePortfolios. For instance, one participant who works in cybersecurity described the difficulty of reviewing the portfolio during the interview process:
Like at our company, we’re going to bring a potential employee into a small boardroom, but it’s not going to have a computer … It’s not like I have a projector or something that can broadcast this on.
Another participant who owned a closed captioning business suggested that the link should be posted “near the top of the resume”, so employers can review it on their own time. Quite simply, if the technology cannot be negotiated by the reader, the ePortfolio will not be read.
Students and instructors also noted that unfamiliarity with ePortfolio platforms were a barrier to their implementation. A psychology professor said:
I think the biggest challenge of whether or not I would use them [ePortfolios] is that I would not know how to do all these things to be able to give [the students] the proper information on how to construct it.
Another significant bottleneck related to the technology challenges, discussed by Mueller and Bair (2018), is time. Students need to begin their portfolios on the first day of their program or course. They need support from instructors to build the ePortfolio, instruction about how to critically reflect on their learning, and explicit instruction about the ePortfolio’s audience and purpose. The instructors commented that supporting full integration of the ePortfolio into the course was essential to helping students complete an ePortfolio, but not all instructors were willing to invest the time to master ePortfolio pedagogy and platforms.
Employers explained that it would take too much time to review ePortfolios and that they preferred brief texts with bulleted lists over the longer texts presented in the sample ePortfolios. They indicated that ePortfolios could be helpful in making a final selection between two to three highly qualified applicants because of the detailed information about candidates’ skills. For example, an employee with the Environmental Protection Agency who hires interns said:
The one thing I do like – I’m noticing – is that when you get like a typical resume, you have no context for the experiences. The ePortfolio gives him a little bit of an opportunity to talk about context.
The opportunity to consider context did not appear to overcome most employer participants’ concerns about the time needed to review the ePortfolios.
Leahy and Filiatrault (2017) suggest that recruiters with less than two years’ experience are more open to using ePortfolios as part of the hiring process than recruiters with three or more years’ experience. More importantly, students should be encouraged to design portfolios specific to the needs of employers. Such portfolios should be streamlined with minimal text and artifacts, so they can be quickly reviewed. In our case study, employers indicated they could review ePortfolios in final hiring rounds.
6 Conclusion
Instructors, students, and employers make assumptions about ePortfolios that can cause unnecessary difficulty in implementing ePortfolios. By carefully
The principal bottlenecks for all three stakeholders are time and technology. First, instructors must make time to help students create the ePortfolio as a valued part of the course, students need support to consistently work on the ePortfolio, and employers need to find the appropriate time in the hiring process to use ePortfolios. Finally, technology is a bottleneck to ePortfolio implementation because of the number of platforms that can be used to create ePortfolios. Whatever technology is chosen, instructors need to embrace learning and using the technology because students need support in learning and applying it, and employers need an accessible and easy way to navigate an ePortfolio.
These threshold concepts and bottlenecks were shared by all three stakeholders, and researchers in the field have consistently highlighted these issues of purpose, pedagogy, audience, time, and technology. Using ePortfolios can be a transformative practice, but the promise will be unrealized if these issues are not addressed by those promoting ePortfolios. The difficulty is that those implementing ePortfolios need to keep in mind that even though these threshold concepts and bottlenecks have become non-issues for them due to their experience and expertise, they continue to be troublesome concepts to those who are new to ePortfolios. To ensure successful implementation, educational developers should focus on addressing these threshold concepts and bottlenecks so that the promise of this high-impact practice can be realized.
References
AAC&U. (2022, January 6). Eportfolios. AAC&U. Retrieved March 27, 2022, from https://www.aacu.org/trending-topics/eportfolios
Abd-Whab, S., Che-Ani, A., Johar, S., Ismail, K., & Abd-Razak, M. (2016). Eportfolio: A descriptive survey for contents and challenges. International Journal of Emerging Technologies in Learning, 11(1), 4–10. https://doi.org/10.3991/ijet.v11i01.4900
Appling, J., Dippre, A., Gregory, E, Hembree, M., Kooi, K., Pazzo, K., Carson, S., & Shawen, A. (2015). General education and eportfolios: Syllabi and the role of faculty. International Journal of ePortfolio, 5(1), 55–62.
Backlund, J., Handberg, L., Stringer, J., Nash, H., Gustafsson, J., Lundsford, A., Chen, H., & Cannon, D., (2001, March 27). Personal learning portfolios: Folio thinking. Proposal to the Wallenberg Global Learning Network Funding Program. Retrieved July 18, 2022, from http://www.broady.se/arkiv/skeptron/portfolio-proposal-010327.pdf
Berbegal Vázquez, A., Arraiz Pérez, A., Sabirón Sierra, F., & Merino Orozco, A. (2021). The e-portfolio in higher education: The case of a line of teaching innovation and complex change management (No. ART-2021-125338). https://zaguan.unizar.es/record/109123
Braun, V., & Clarke, V. (2006) Using thematic analysis in psychology. Qualitative Research in Psychology, 3(2), 77–101. https://doi.org/10.1191/1478088706qp063oa
Cambridge, D. (2010). Eportfolios for Lifelong Learning and Assessment. Jossey-Bass.
Chen, H. L., & Black, T. C. (2010). Using e-portfolios to support an undergraduate learning career: An experiment with academic advising. Educause Quarterly 33(4), Retrieved July 18, 2022, from https://www.learntechlib.org/p/109184/
Chen, H. L., & Patel, S. (2018). Using reflection and digital storytelling via eportfolios to support the professional development of engineering graduate students. 2018 IEEE Frontiers in Education Conference (FIE). pp. 1–5. https://doi.org/10.1109/FIE.2018.8659192
Clark, I. (2016). Genre, identity, and the brain: Insights from neuropsychology. Journal of General Education, 65(1), 1–19. https://doi.org/10.5325/jgeneeduc.65.1.0001
Conference on College Composition and Communication. (2015). Principles and practices in electronic portfolios. Position statement. Conference on College Composition and Communication. https://cccc.ncte.org/cccc/resources/positions/electronicportfolios
Davis, R. (2017, January 20). ePortfolios? General Education Curriculum Renewal. https://sites.stedwards.edu/seugened/2017/01/20/eportfolios/
Douglas, M., Peecksen, S., Rogers, J., & Simmons, M. (2019). College students’ motivation and confidence for eportfolio use. International Journal of ePortfolio, 9(1), 1–16.
Eynon, B., & Gambino, L. M. (2017). High-impact eportfolio practice: A catalyst for student, faculty, and institutional learning. Stylus.
Hofer, A. R., Hanick, S. L., & Townsend, L. (2018). Transforming information literacy instruction: Threshold concepts in theory and practice. Abc-Clio.
Hornor, T. (2021). The journey of designing and implementing an institution-wide e-leadership portfolio. International Journal of ePortfolio, 11(2), 109–116.
Hoven, D., Walsh, P., Al-Tawil, R., & Prokopetz, R. Z. (2021). Exploring professional development needs and strategies for instructors/faculty facilitating ePortfolios online. Irish Journal of Technology Enhanced Learning, 6(1), 154–176. https://doi.org/10.22554/ijtel.v6i1.102
Hubert, D. (2016). Eportfolio, assessment, and general education transformation. Peer Review, 18(3), 25–29.
Joyes, G., Gray, L., & Hartnell-Young, E. (2010). Effective practice with e-portfolios: How can the UK experience inform implementation? Australasian Journal of Educational Technology, 26(1). https://doi.org/10.14742/ajet.1099
Kahn, S. (2019). Modeling high-impact eportfolio practice: A review of Catalyst in Action: Case Studies of High-Impact ePortfolio Practice. International Journal of ePortfolio, 9(1), 55–58.
Kuh, G. (2008). High-impact educational practices: What they are, who has access to them, and why they matter. Association of American Colleges and Universities. Retrieved July 18, 2022, from https://provost.tufts.edu/celt/files/High-Impact-Ed-Practices1.pdf
Kuh, G. (2017). Foreword. In B. Eynon & L. Gambino (Eds.), High-impact ePortfolio practice: A catalyst for student, faculty, and institutional learning (pp. vii–xi). Stylus.
Lam, R. (2021). E-Portfolios: What we know, what we don’t, and what we need to know. RELC Journal. https://doi.org/10.1177/0033688220974102
Leahy, R. L., & Filiatrault, A. (2017). Employers’ perceptions of the benefits of employment electronic portfolios. International Journal of ePortfolio, 7(2), 217–223.
Land, R., Cousin, G., Meyer, J. H. F., & Davies, P. (2005). Threshold concepts and troublesome knowledge (3): Implications for course design and evaluation. In C. Rust (Ed.), Improving student learning (pp. 53–64). Oxford Centre for Staff and Learning Development.
Lewis, L. (2017). ePortfolio as pedagogy: Threshold concepts for curriculum design. E-learning and Digital Media, 14(1–2), 72–85. https://doi.org/10.1177/2042753017694497
Lewis, C. H. (1982). Using the “Thinking Aloud” method in cognitive interface design (Technical report). IBM. RC-9265.
Lotter, C., Harwood, W., & Bonner, J. (2006). Overcoming a learning bottleneck: Inquiry professional development for secondary science teachers. Journal of Science Teacher Education, 17, 185–216. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10972-005-9002-3
Meyer, J. H. F., & Land, R. (2003). Threshold concepts and troublesome knowledge: Linkages to ways of thinking and practising within the disciplines. Enhancing Teaching-Learning Environments in Undergraduate Courses Occasional Report 4. https://www.etl.tla.ed.ac.uk/docs/ETLreport4.pdf
Meyer, J. H. F., & Land, R. (2006). Threshold concepts and troublesome knowledge: Issues of liminality. In J. H. F. Meyer & R. Land (Eds.), Overcoming barriers to student understanding: Threshold concepts and troublesome knowledge (pp. 19–32). Routledge.
Middendorf, J., & Pace, D. (2004). Decoding the disciplines: A model for helping students learn disciplinary ways of thinking. New Directions for Teaching and Learning, 98, 1–12. https://doi.org/10.1002/tl.142
Mueller, R., & Bair, H. (2018). Deconstructing the notion of eportfolio as a ‘high impact practice’: A self-study and comparative analysis. The Canadian Journal for the Scholarship of Teaching and Learning, 9(3), 1–14. https://doi.org/10.5206/cjsotl-rcacea.2018.3.6
Pelnar, H., & Cameron, L. (2021, February). Mental processes used by faculty and students during graphical interpretation [Video]. YouTube. A presentation for the International Society for the Scholarship of Teaching and Learning ISSOTL Connect 2021 Virtual Event. https://youtu.be/ktq7dsz7LR4
Ring, G. L., Waugaman, C., Brackett, R., & Jackson, D. B. (2015). Using eportfolios to assess and improve the general education curriculum. The Journal of General Education, 64(4), 310–333. Retrieved June 14, 2019, from Project MUSE database. https://doi.org/10.5325/jgeneeduc.64.4.0310
Scholtz, K., Tse, C., & Lithgow, K. (2017). Unifying experiences: Learner and instructor approaches and reactions to eportfolio usage in higher education. International Journal of ePortfolio, 7(2), 139–150. http://www.theijep.com/pdf/IJEP264.pdf
Scully, D., O’Leary, M., & Brown, M. (2018). The learning portfolio in higher education: A game of snakes and ladders. Dublin City University, Centre for Assessment Research, Policy & Practice in Education (CARPE) and National Institute for Digital Learning (NIDL). https://www.researchgate.net/publication/323390957_The_Learning_Portfolio_in_Higher_Education_A_Game_of_Snakes_and_Ladders
Takayama, K. (2014). A Metacognitive Approach to Mapping Collaborative Inquiry through E-Portfolios. Peer Review, 16(1), 24–26. https://link.gale.com/apps/doc/A376106004/AONE?u=anon~fa276114&sid=bookmark-AONE&xid=8ebcba1e
Veneruso, S., Black, E., Chaden, C., Habron, G., Muller, K., Stephens, B., Watson, J., & Yancey, K. (2017). Promoting student cognitive development: Integrative learning, reflection and metacognition. Field Guide to Eportfolio. Association for Authentic, Experiential and Evidence-Based Learning. https://aaeebl.org/2021/11/06/field-guide-to-eportfolio/
Watson, C. E., Kuh, G. D., Rhodes, T., Light, T. P., & Chen, H. L. (2016). Editorial: ePortfolios – The eleventh high impact practice. International Journal of ePortfolio, 6(2), 65–69.