Book Review

ePortfolios@edu: What We Know, What We Don’t Know, and Everything In-Between, written by Mary

Dellinger and D. Alexis Hart, was published by the University Press of Colorado in October 2020. Dellinger and Hart pair personal experience with other academic writings to consider the history of the ePortfolio, the challenges and benefits of incorporating it in the classroom, and its potential future. The book is broken up into three sections: Getting Started, Institutional Implementation, and Assessing Performance. Largely aimed at educators of higher education, the work argues for an interdisciplinary and wide-range usage of the ePortfolio, providing outlines and tips for how to do so. 

​

In the preface of ePortfolios@edu, Dellinger and Hart note that the ePortfolio began as a niche

that was viewed largely as a fad, but thanks to the advent of evolving technology, its popularity had significantly risen, and with it, a dedicated field of study. As educators part of that field, they begin the first section discussing the creation and history of EMMA, a writing environment created by the University of Georgia. With the creation of EMMA came the open source text editor jEdit, which contained many features meant directly to aid in the practice of writing. One example were tags that students could apply to different segments of their texts, creating a new way to organize their writing so that they “would gain new rhetorical perspectives by having to deconstruct and name the function of each of the parts of their texts as part of the composing process. The parts of students’ essays’ structure and, more importantly, the definitions of those parts would become visible.” (Dellinger and Hart 15). Often in modern contexts when we discuss the creation of ePortfolios, the tools utilized are those that already exist for general online functionality, such as website builders and blog sites. But this discussion of the earlier days of the ePortfolio demonstrates to the audience the value in having software developed by institutions with the aim of creating tools specifically for the creation of digital portfolios. Furthermore, by discussing the changes project EMMA underwent as online spaces grew, this chapter lays out the need for such software, to adapt quickly to the constantly changing landscape of technology and the internet. Thus, such software requires constant updates, and requires those who work on or with the software to be aware of the larger technological context it exists in. But if the upkeep could be managed, such innovation could be very beneficial for students and teachers alike. 

​

In the second part of the book, Dellinger and Hart lay out the importance of institutional involvement in the implementation of ePortfolios, noting how challenging it can be for individual educators or programs to make such large changes sustainable. Academia, like the individuals that are involved in it, are resistant to change. They argue this is why higher education has a longstanding flaw in how it presents information, as the current structure “encourages students to fragment their learning experiences. With core requirements, majors, and minors, students rarely have the opportunity or support to integrate their learning experiences in a holistic way” (65). The ePortfolio has the potential to fix this issue; while it’s still a relatively new technology it faces the difficulty of being adopted by students and teachers, but it also carries the potential for a redesigned approach to education. Thus, it is implied that its incorporation could overcome the biggest challenge to “building habits of life-long learning… the inability of students to integrate knowledge” while in school (65). They don’t go into detail about how to utilize the ePortfolio for this goal, but many of its highlighted strengths directly relate to linking different types of knowledge, making connections, and having an interdisciplinary approach; all of which could lead to more holistic learning. 

​

There are two potential ways digital portfolios could be implemented on an institutional level for freshmen, in a singular targeted way, or with multiple potential points of entry. The former involves the creation of a class that functions as an introduction to being a college student, and involves a scaffolding approach to creating an ePortfolio. It is reminiscent to me of an introduction to graduate studies, which helps students transition from undergraduate to graduate work, but in this case the transition is from secondary to higher education, and has a particular focus on technological and multimodal composition. Meanwhile, the latter way is to have multiple freshman courses that assign online portfolio projects, spanning multiple disciplines. ePortfolios@edu makes it clear that there is no one right way, each university is different and has different needs. I believe a flexible approach such as this is key, because ePortfolios can be used in so many different ways that a one-size-fits-all approach would not work. Instead, universities should be prepared to listen to student and teacher feedback and adjust accordingly, partly to keep up with technological changes, and partly to meet the needs and desires of those they serve. Ultimately, ePortfolios encourage a democratic approach to education, one that equally involves student, teacher, and administration. 

​

Another reason it’s important to have institutional support is that the work of incorporation cannot fall squarely on the teaching faculty, instead it should be equally spread out with plenty of support options for students. Dellinger and Hart admit that the costs of a school-wide implementation of digital portfolios can be prohibitive. For a program to be successful, it needs to face the challenges of  “providing sufficient, meaningful support—technical, pedagogical, and philosophical—to ensuring ownership among all stakeholders,” or risking the alienation or frustration of students (67). There needs to be, within the institution, department, and classroom, an understanding of the purpose the ePortfolio is going to serve so everyone can be on the same page, otherwise courses won’t be designed correctly and students will become frustrated and confused. Only when there is strong institutional support and general agreement from all stake-holders, can the designing process begin. One helpful tip for the creation of such a program is utilizing backwards design, which involves three phases “1) identifying desired results; 2) determining acceptable evidence; and 3) planning learning experiences and instruction” (76). With this methodology, Dellinger and Hart note they have found the value of having peer tutors serve and train as ambassadors to the ePortfolio, and having dedicated spaces within writing centers for it. These suggestions are very pragmatic. I've found in my own experience that while CSUN’s peer tutors are relatively comfortable with online software, they aren’t trained to help students learn to master the skills required to make a good ePortfolio. Having events, tutors, and spaces in the writing center dedicated to digital composition would make the permanent incorporation of ePortfolios more possible, and provide freshman students with needed support.

​

Lastly, the third section examines how to standardize assessments of how effective the ePortfolio model is in order to do research and improve its usage. Such standardization can be difficult, because of the variety of ways ePortfolios can be used, as sometimes in classes they are used as a way to assess and grade students, and other times they can be used as tools of reflection that are meant to be low-stakes. Thus, “Achieving faculty buy-in can be difficult amidst so many different definitions and approaches for ePortfolios. In all cases, if ePortfolios are being implemented in ways that truly leverage their potential to imbue reflection, self-assessment, and metacognition into the learning process, they have the potential to act as a high impact practice and catalyst for learning and transformation.” (170). Dellinger and Hart convincingly demonstrate the benefits of both faculty and administration buying-in, arguing ePortfolios are a very powerful tool that, when implemented correctly in a standardized yet flexible way, can lead to wide-scale adoption with a plethora of benefits. Thus, this section is helpful for both professors working in higher education who can take these pointers and push for their own university to implement ePortfolios, and it is also beneficial for administrators who can learn the benefits of institutionalized ePortfolios. 

​

ePortfolios@edu: What We Know, What We Don’t Know, and Everything In-Between is a great introductory exploration of the history, current usage, and potential future of the ePortfolio. A large swath of the book serves as guidance for those interested in utilizing ePortfolios in their own classroom but are unsure of how to start. A unique aspect of Dellinger and Hart’s writing, however, is their focus on both administrators and professors, as there is lots of material for the former in promoting an institutionally adopted form of ePortfolios, in which there is administrative support pushing for its usage rather than a handful of teachers. With the consistent push towards online integration of content and composition, and the increasing relevance of technological proficiency, I believe the arguments laid out in this book for standardizing ePortfolios is a good one, and can be used to some extent to support the inclusion of other digital tools. Overall, I’d recommend this book to anyone interested in learning more about how ePortfolios can be used in the classroom, and the potential future of technology in academia.
 

Works Cited

Dellinger, Mary, and Hart, D. Alexis. EPortfolios@Edu: What We Know, What We Don't Know, and

Everything in Between. University Press of Colorado, 2020.