Figure 1: e-portfolio implementations framework

Completion of all cells in a particular column would represent a measure of effective use within that /those context/s. The ePI study is exploring large-scale implementations and so a few examples of ‘Intra course- localised use’ would not normally qualify, but an institution that had a whole institution policy that supported a wide range of effective localised use would. This framework has been developed as an outcome of the JISC funded analysis of the findings of twenty-one funded projects (2006-09) which suggests that there are threshold concepts related to e-portfolio implementation that can be correlated with particular preconceptions which commonly represent barriers to implementation (Joyes et al, 2010). The threshold concepts are expressed from a design-for-learning perspective, which assumes a mature understanding of e-portfolio use. They are:

• Purpose is aligned to context to maximise benefits: Some contexts suit some purposes more than others and this needs to be determined by an analysis of the benefits (and costs) of the purpose in that particular context;

• Learning activity is designed to suit the purpose: There must be a conscious design and support of a learning activity/activities suited to the purpose and the context;

• Processes are supported technologically and pedagogically: The processes involved in the creation of the e-portfolio in the particular context must be understood and both technical and pedagogic support needs to be provided;

• Ownership is student centred: The e-portfolio processes and outcomes need to be owned by the student. This view leads to considering portability and choice of tool, e.g., use of their phone, camera, audio recorder, Web 2.0 application;

• Transformation (disruption) is planned for: E-portfolios are potentially transformative and as a result are disruptive from a pedagogic, technological and an institutional perspective because they tend not to fit exactly within existing systems. This has implications at an institutional level as they impact on the nature of the curriculum and its assessment as well as staff workload and pedagogic and technical support, particularly in novel, work based learning and life-wide contexts. It is at this transformation level that efficiency gains can be maximised in relation to reuse of data and integration of systems. 
   

Further analysis of implementation in the UK and work on maturity models, e.g. the Becta impact project (Hartnell-Young et al, 2007), AeP projects in Australia (AeP, 2008) and the SURF project in Holland (SURF NL, 2007), suggest that a useful approach for Higher and Further Education institutions is to consider an implementations framework of effective or mature use that maps the threshold concepts across types or ‘slices’ of use as shown in Figure 1.

References

AeP. (2008). Australian -ePortfolio Project Final Report 1http://www.eportfoliopractice.qut.edu.au/information/report [viewed 22 July 2010].

Hartnell-Young, E., Harrison, C., Crook, C., Joyes, G., Davies, L., Fisher, T. (2007). The Impact of e-portfolios on Learning. Coventry, UK: British Educational Communications and Technology Agency (Becta). http://research.becta.org.uk/upload-dir/downloads/page_documents/research/impact_study_eportfolios.pdf [viewed 26 August 2010].

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) 15-27. http://www.ascilite.org.au/ajet/ajet26/joyes.html [viewed 26 August 2010].

SURF NL. (2007). Stimulating lifelong learning: The ePortfolio in Dutch higher education. http://www.surffoundation.nl/smartsite.dws?ch=eng&id=13319 [viewed 26 August 2010].