Computers & Education 72 (2014) 187195

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Computers & Education

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/compedu

Using e-portfolios to elevate knowledge amassment among university

students
Chi-Cheng Chang a, *, Chaoyun Liang b, Kuo-Hung Tseng c, Ju-Shih Tseng a
a
Department of Technology Application & Human Resource Development, National Taiwan Normal University, No. 162, He-Ping E. Road, Section 1,
Taipei 106, Taiwan
b
Department of Bio-Industry Communication and Development, National Taiwan University, No. 1, Sec. 4, Roosevelt Road, Taipei 10617, Taiwan
c
Graduate Institute of Business and Management, Meiho University, No.23, Pingguang Rd., Neipu, Pingtung, Taiwan

a r t i c l e i n f o a b s t r a c t

Article history: The study aimed to explore the effect of e-portfolios on knowledge amassment. Participants were juniors
Received 15 July 2013 majoring in multimedia design and taking the course Analysis on Digital Game Industry at a university.
Received in revised form They were randomly selected and assigned to an experimental group with 43 students or to a control
26 October 2013
group with 45 students. Students in the experimental group created their personal e-portfolios by using
Accepted 31 October 2013
blogs, whereas students in the control group did not. The experiment lasted nine weeks, and took 3 h per
week. The study results showed that the experimental group had signicantly higher knowledge
Keywords:
amassment after using e-portfolios than before. The experimental group had signicantly better
E-portfolio
Blog knowledge amassment than the control group did. This indicated that the effects of blog-based portfolios
Blog-based portfolio on knowledge amassment was signicantly positive.
Knowledge amassment 2013 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction

E-portfolios are digitalized tools for collecting and presenting students learning processes and outcomes systematically. In the process of
creating paper-based portfolios, the critical problems are inquiries, revisions, storages, and management. However, e-portfolios cover these
problems (Barrett, 2011). The process for creating e-portfolios is related to data collection, acquisition, revision, organization, presentation,
storage, and accumulation. The process for using e-portfolios must involve information inquiry, application, sharing, and management.
Contents for e-portfolios are all-inclusive, such as learning objectives, learning plans, projects, assignments, reections, handouts, notes,
journeys, group discussions, tests and answers. Furthermore, results for self-assessment, peer assessment and feedback, and teacher
assessment and feedback are also included (Barrett, 2010; Chang & Tseng, 2011; Fernandez & Illera, 2009). The information is not only
general data, but also is useful information, such as handouts, notes, tests, and answers, which are worthy knowledge. Although projects,
assignments, reections, group discussions, peer assessment and feedback, and teacher assessment and feedback can only be general data
and information, after a systematical management, reorganization, and accumulation, they can probably become useful knowledge.
Based on the explanations above, since e-portfolios may contain useful knowledge, processes for creating and using e-portfolios may of
course involve acquisition, organization, storage, accumulation, inquiry, application, sharing, innovation, and management of knowledge.
However, this is only a reasonable hypothesis, which has not yet been proved by empirical research. Although there is some literature
suggesting that processes of creating and using e-portfolios have positive effects on knowledge-management behavior (Bozhko & Heinrich,
2011; Lorenzo & Ittelson, 2005; Palmer, Holt, Hall, & Ferguson, 2009; Tochel et al., 2009), the literature is based on theories, which has not
been proven by empirical research and is not discussed with constructs of knowledge management including knowledge acquisition,
integration, storage, accumulation, application, sharing, and innovation. Among these constructs, knowledge acquisition, integration,
storage, and accumulation are highly related to e-portfolios. However, this is only a reasonable hypothesis that has not yet been proved by
empirical research, so it is worth studying and is one of the motivations for the present study.

* Corresponding author. Tel.: 886 2 77343423; fax: 886 2 23921015.

E-mail addresses: samchang@ntnu.edu.tw, samchichengchang@ntnu.edu.tw (C.-C. Chang), cliang@ntu.edu.tw (C. Liang), gohome8515@gmail.com (K.-H. Tseng), jstseng@
ntnu.edu.tw (J.-S. Tseng).

0360-1315/$ see front matter 2013 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2013.10.015
188 C.-C. Chang et al. / Computers & Education 72 (2014) 187195

Most studies about knowledge management have focused on knowledge acquisition, application, sharing, and innovation (Kimber, Pillay,
& Richards, 2007), and few studies have focused on knowledge amassment. Knowledge amassment is a common name for knowledge
storage and accumulation, which means that new acquired knowledge is integrated with existing knowledge, and further stored and
accumulated (Franco & Mariano, 2007; Lee, Lee, & Kang, 2005; Lin & Wu, 2010; Plessis & Toit, 2006). According to the process of using e-
portfolios, knowledge amassment integrates new acquired knowledge with existing knowledge and then stores it into a form that can be
comprehended easily and retrieved in the future. Learners can reserve knowledge for applications in the future by the process of knowledge
acquisition, integration, storage, and accumulation. The four constructs of knowledge amassment can probably be experienced during the
use of e-portfolios. Berrill and Addison (2010) mentioned that knowledge can be more complete with reections and thinking processes in
e-portfolios. Although a study done by Peet et al. (2011) proved that e-portfolios possess functions of presentation and integration of
knowledge, the study was based on the perspective of integrative learning, not the perspective of knowledge management. Do e-portfolios
contain the positive effects of knowledge amassment mentioned above? Can e-portfolios facilitate the four constructs mentioned above?
These two questions are issues that are worth studying, but they have not yet been proven by any empirical research. Therefore, the purpose
of the present study is to examine the effect of e-portfolios on students knowledge amassment. The research questions are listed as follows:

1) Are students (experimental group) knowledge amassment (acquisition, integration, storage, accumulation, and the overall) after using
e-portfolios signicantly better than before?
2) Do students in the experimental group have signicantly better knowledge amassment (acquisition, integration, storage, accumulation,
and the overall) than students in the control group?

2. Literature review

2.1. Knowledge amassment

There are many constructs of knowledge management. The most common constructs are knowledge acquisition, application, storage,
accumulation, transferring, sharing, and innovation (Alavi & Tiwana, 2003; Award & Ghaziri, 2004; Artail, 2006; Franco & Mariano, 2007; Lee
et al., 2005; Liebowitz, 2012). Among these constructs, knowledge storage and accumulation are related to each other, and are considered
knowledge amassment. In general, knowledge must proceed with storage and accumulation in order to be effectively transferred to long-term
memory. Lin and Wu (2010) pointed out that knowledge accumulation is to select useful knowledge from inner and outer, to integrate new
acquired knowledge with existing knowledge, and to save and accumulate. Plessis and Toit (2006) also stated that knowledge amassment is to
integrate and store new acquired knowledge with existing knowledge and then to accumulate all of the knowledge as complete knowledge.
Other researchers suggested similar viewpoints that knowledge amassment includes accumulation and application of knowledge after
purposely acquiring knowledge and integrating and storing it with existing knowledge (Donate & Guadamillas, 2010; Fong & Choi, 2009;
Franco & Mariano, 2007). Thus, with a wide range, constructs of knowledge amassment contain knowledge acquisition, integration, stor-
age, accumulation, and application. With a narrow range, constructs of knowledge amassment include knowledge acquisition, integration,
storage, and accumulation. With a more narrow range, knowledge amassment only includes knowledge storage and accumulation.

2.2. E-portfolios and knowledge amassing

Traditional paper-based portfolios cost too much time and manpower in data search, editing, saving, and management, especially could not be
saved in each type of media, such as audio and video. Barrett (2010) suggested that e-portfolios can cover the disadvantages of storage in
traditional paper-based portfolios. With advanced technology, students portfolios can be recorded and stored by the Internet and cloud storage.
E-portfolios are to purposely collect students learning performance in order to understand their learning processes and outcomes. This collected
information includes reections, assignments, projects, artifacts, discussion records, lecture notes, test contents, learning thoughts, peer
assessment and feedback, teacher assessment and feedback, and other evidence that can represent learning processes and outcomes. The col-
lections and organizations of these are relevant to knowledge management behavior (Berrill & Addison; 2010; Bozhko & Heinrich, 2011; Lorenzo &
Ittelson, 2005; Palmer et al., 2009; Tochel et al., 2009). Palmer et al. (2009) also indicated that students e-portfolios are tools for collecting
documents, presenting learning performance, and writing reections, which are related to knowledge storage and accumulation. E-portfolios are
also a digital space for storing and accumulating students projects or artifacts as the functions of knowledge storage and accumulation.
Options for contents and knowledge organization in e-portfolios are customized and selective. E-portfolios enable learners to review
their learning processes and outcomes by self-reection and assessments from others, and they enhance learners knowledge management
ability through the way of information presented (Palmer et al., 2009). Based on students reections in e-portfolios, knowledge can be
accumulated as whole knowledge by reecting and thinking (Berrill & Addison, 2010). The use of portfolios can support learners reecting
process, formative and summative assessments, and knowledge management behavior (Tochel et al., 2009). While using e-portfolios,
learners can further organize and systematize information in order to produce useful knowledge and improve self-management-knowledge
behavior by collecting and presenting information with goals. According to integrated learning, Peet et al. (2011) conrmed that e-portfolios
enable learners to present and integrate knowledge from the perspective of integrated learning. In summary, using e-portfolios enables
learners to acquire, integrate, store, and accumulate knowledge.

3. Research method

3.1. Participants

Participants were juniors majoring in multimedia design and taking the course Analysis on Digital Game Industry in a university. They
were randomly selected and assigned to an experimental group with 43 students or to a control group with 45 students. There were a total
 C.-C. Chang et al. / Computers & Education 72 (2014) 187195 189

of 88 students, with 48 males and 40 females. Students in the experimental group created their personal e-portfolios by using a blog,
whereas students in the control group did not. The experiment lasted nine weeks, and 3 h per week. Both groups had the same teaching
schedule, curricular contents, and instructor.

3.2. Research framework

The pretest-posttest control-group design of quasi-experimental research was employed in the present study. Both groups were
administered a scale of knowledge amassment before and after the experiment, as shown in Table 1. The t-test was employed to examined
students differences in knowledge amassment, including knowledge acquisition, integration, storage, and accumulation, before and after
using e-portfolios. Moreover, multivariate analysis of covariance (MANCOVA) with the pretest of knowledge amassment as covariance was
applied for examining both groups differences in knowledge amassment. Finally, students reections in the experimental group were
analyzed and compared with the statistical results. The research framework is shown in Fig. 1.

3.3. Scale of knowledge amassment

The scale of knowledge amassment employed in the present study was developed and modied based on the scale provided by Lee et al.
(2005), Franco and Mariano (2007), Loew, Kuemmel, Ruprecht, Bleimann, and Walsh (2007), Fong and Choi (2009), and Mansingh, Osei-
Bryson, and Reichgelt (2009) with features of e-portfolios. The scale was rstly reviewed by the authors and instructors in order to
ensure its appropriateness and readability and to establish its face validity. Afterward, the scale was reviewed by several experts in order to
verify its intention of measuring knowledge amassment, check that the items are professional and accuracy, and establish its expert and
content validity. These experts are professionals in the eld of e-portfolios or knowledge management.
The scale includes four constructs: knowledge selection, knowledge extraction, knowledge storage, and knowledge retrieval. The
measurement is based on the Likert 5-point scale. The higher the point, the more the participants agree with the item. Each construct
contains ve items, so there are a total of 20 items in the scale. The summary of each construct is shown as the following:

1. Knowledge acquisition: To acquire new knowledge through various methods.

2. Knowledge integration: To reorganize new knowledge with existing knowledge for useful knowledge.
3. Knowledge storage: To store new knowledge, existing knowledge, and integrated knowledge.
4. Knowledge accumulation: To re-store knowledge that has been accumulated and reorganized over and over again.

3.4. Blog-based portfolios

Students in the experimental group used blogs as a tool for creating e-portfolios. They created and presented their blogs on Station of
Wretch provided by Yahoo. They also presented their learning goals, reections, and projects on their blogs. Blogs help students write in-
dividual reections as well as save projects, learning processes, and outcomes, and provide students the functions of automatic saving and
searching, which enable students to organize and manage knowledge effectively. Furthermore, blogs can enhance interactions among
students and make it convenient for students to create portfolios and search for knowledge (Lu, 2007). An example of one students blog-
based portfolio is shown in Fig. 2.

3.5. Experimental procedure

The instructor integrated e-portfolios into the instruction. The instructional activities included the design of projects, reective teaching,
observation of projects, and peer feedback. The experimental group used blogs to create personal e-portfolios, but the control group did not.
The experiment lasted nine weeks. There were three stages for the research procedure, which were preparation, implementation, and oral
presentation and scale administering, as shown in Table 2.

3.6. Reliability and validity of the scale

3.6.1. Item analysis

The participants were categorized into high score and low score based on their scores of the pretest of knowledge amassment (Kelley,
1939). The t-test was conducted to examine if there are signicant differences in each item between the high-score group and the low-score
group. The results showed that the t value (Critical Ratio, CR) for all of the items were signicant (p < .05), which implied that the
discrimination for each item in the scale was good enough. Pearsons correlation was also conducted for examining the relationship between
the scores of each item and the scale. The result revealed that correlation coefcients were signicant, which meant that each item was
consistent with the whole scale. Thus, all the items were retained, as shown in Table 3.

Table 1
The pretest-posttest control-group design of quasi-experimental research.

Group Pretest Treatment Posttest

Experimental Knowledge amassment Using e-portfolios Knowledge amassment
Control Knowledge amassment Without using e-portfolios Knowledge amassment
190 C.-C. Chang et al. / Computers & Education 72 (2014) 187195

Independent variable Dependent

Experimental group Posttest for knowledge

Using e-portfolios
Control group
Without using e-portfolios
MANCOVA amassment
Knowledge acquisition
Knowledge integration
Knowledge storage
Knowledge accumulation

Covariance

Pretest for knowledge amassment

Fig. 1. Research framework.

3.6.2. Factor analysis

If the conception of a construct is clear, stratied factor analysis can be conducted (Bryman & Cramer, 2011). As shown in Table 4,
Bartletts test of sphericity was signicant for each construct and the overall knowledge amassment, and Kaiser-Meyer-Olkin measure of
sampling adequacy (KMO) was greater than .8, which was appropriate for factor analysis (Gravetter & Wallnau, 2008).
Principal components analysis with varimax rotation of orthogonal rotation was conducted for the factor analysis, so the information
among factors would not overlap, and factor loadings were easy to explain (Howell, 2010). As shown in Table 5, since the factor loading for
each item was greater than .5, none of the items in the scale had to be deleted (Hair, Black, Babin, & Anderson, 2010). The eigenvalue for each
construct was greater than 1, so the existence of each construct was reasonable. The explained variance for each aspect was greater than 45%,
implying that the validity of each construct was good.

3.6.3. Reliability
The reliability coefcients for the four constructs were greater than .8 and for the overall scale was greater than .965, as measured by
Cronbachs a, suggesting that the scale had a relatively high consistency.

4. Result and discussion

4.1. Differences in knowledge amassment of the experimental group between pretest and posttest

A paired-sample t-test was performed to examine the differences in the knowledge amassment between pretest and posttest results
among students in the experimental group using e-portfolios. As shown in Table 6, they were signicantly different in the overall knowledge
amassment and the four constructs before and after the experiment. Students overall knowledge amassment and the four constructs after

Fig. 2. A students blog-based portfolio in the experimental group.

 C.-C. Chang et al. / Computers & Education 72 (2014) 187195 191

Table 2
Experimental procedure.

Week Group Activities

Preparation (First week) Experimental 1. The instructor gives lecture on basic concepts and intention of e-portfolios.
2. The instructor introduces and demonstrates how to use blogs to create e-portfolios.
3. Students practice the use of blogs.
4. The pretest of knowledge amassment is administered to students.
Control 1. The teacher introduces the course contents without specic activities.
2. The pretest of knowledge amassment is administered to students.
Implementation Experimental 1. The teacher begins the instruction and explains the key points of using portfolios.
(Second to seventh week) 2. The teacher demonstrates how to use blogs to create e-portfolios.
3. The teacher review students projects, reections, and portfolios, as well as gives feedback.
4. Students use blogs to create e-portfolios and engage each activity,
such as uploading projects, writing reections, observing projects, and giving peer feedback.
Control 1. The teacher reviews students projects and gives feedback.
2. Students do not write reections or engage in activities of portfolio.
3. Students need to turn in paper-based projects, observe paper-based projects,
and give peer feedback, but not online.
Oral presentation Experimental 1. Students present projects and explain how to manage portfolios,
and Scale administering as well as their feedback about the use of portfolios.
(Eighth to ninth week)
2. The posttest of knowledge amassment is administered to students.
Control 1. Students present projects
2. The posttest of knowledge amassment is administered to students.

creating e-portfolios were signicantly better than before, which showed that the use of e-portfolios had a positive effect on students
knowledge amassment.

4.2. Differences in knowledge amassment between two groups

Levenes test of equality of covariance was insignicant for both groups knowledge amassment and four constructs, meaning that the
homogeneity assumption was sustained, so analysis of variance (ANOVA) can be performed. The regression slope appeared insignicant for
both groups knowledge amassment and four constructs, suggesting that the homogeneity assumption was sustained; therefore, multi-
variate analysis of covariance (MANCOVA) can be performed.
As shown in Table 7, both groups were signicantly different in knowledge amassment and four constructs. As shown in Table 8, students in
the experimental group had signicantly better knowledge amassment and the four constructs than students in the control group had, indicating
that the use of e-portfolios had a positive effect on knowledge amassment which signicantly enhanced students knowledge amassment.

4.3. Analysis on contents of reections

4.3.1. Advantages of using blogs as a platform of e-portfolios and knowledge amassment

The students in the experimental group were found to have signicantly better knowledge amassment and four constructs than the
students in the control group, showing that blog-based portfolios can be a platform for knowledge amassment. Students in the experimental
group mentioned it in their reections in e-portfolios:
S7: After this course, I think the course is really helpful to my knowledge storage because I can post all the materials I have learned on the blog.
The information posted on the blog will not be lost, so the course contents will be kept completely.
S10: Since virtual space on the Internet is very large, the information can be put on the blog and lots of useful pictures and data can also be
stored. The data contains lots of valuable information and knowledge.

4.3.2. Knowledge-acquisition behavior

During the process of using e-portfolios, students were expected to acquire and accumulate knowledge through reections toward
learning, achievement of learning goals, and projects. Students can also improve their own projects by observing and learning peers
projects. Students in the experimental group expressed their thought about it in their reections in their e-portfolios:
S7: When searching information or doing homework, referring to peers resources is relatively helpful. Sometimes, I can nd information that is
amazing.
S16: Observing peers projects can provide us various thoughts and give us chances to learn mutually. Besides reections and reviews, we can
also ask ourselves whether we have improved.

4.3.3. Knowledge-integration behavior

Knowledge integration is reorganizing existing knowledge and new knowledge into useful knowledge. A student pointed out how to
obtain useful knowledge by absorption, reorganization, and integration:
192 C.-C. Chang et al. / Computers & Education 72 (2014) 187195

Table 3
Item analysis.

Item Knowledge acquisition Knowledge integration Knowledge storage Knowledge accumulation

t value Correlation coefcients t value Correlation coefcients t value Correlation coefcients t value Correlation coefcients
1 6.686*** .622*** 8.860*** .712*** 9.740*** .753*** 7.121*** .635***
2 7.587*** .593*** 6.500*** .667*** 7.599*** .567*** 5.798*** .556***
3 8.037*** .633*** 7.280*** .669*** 6.407*** .679*** 6.309*** .560***
4 6.448*** .594*** 7.213*** .672*** 7.841*** .697*** 8.191*** .672***
5 5.570*** .506*** 8.496*** .683*** 7.684*** .677*** 7.556*** .713***

***p < .001.

S1: When writing blogs, my brain recalled the knowledge that was acquired before. After management and reorganization, the knowledge
became useful knowledge. The useful knowledge can be retrieved whenever I need it, which is convenient for me to absorb and accumulate
knowledge. Thus, there is lots of knowledge that have been stored and accumulated on the blog.

Furthermore, there was a student suggesting that the process of integration made the learning become effective because he is able to
compare new knowledge with existing knowledge:
S17: Using blogs to store knowledge can help a student understand his learning status by comparing existing knowledge with new acquired
knowledge. This way helps me store and manage knowledge efciently in my learning.

4.3.4. Knowledge-storage behavior

In the process of using e-portfolios, students were expected to obtain and store more knowledge by reecting on and revising their own
projects as well as observing and learning peers projects. Some students mentioned that a blog can make up for a deciency of memory
because it has a feature of storing knowledge in their reections:
S22: There are many sources for knowledge, such as reections and revisions toward our own projects, teacher assessments, and peer
observation. These sources enable us to store more knowledge.
S11: Since human brains have limit memory sizes, a person cannot record all knowledge. However, blog-based portfolios can help us record
and store knowledge that is acquired in classes.

4.3.5. Knowledge-accumulation behavior

The purpose of knowledge accumulation is to store knowledge over and over again while existing knowledge accumulates and re-
organizes continuously. Students use blog-based portfolios to record acquired knowledge because it has a function of accumulation for the
knowledge database. It acts as notes for students to accumulate and review acquired knowledge in any time. Some students reections are
the following:
S3: Writing blogs is to take notes on acquired knowledge, which is helpful to knowledge review.
S14: Writing blogs is to create a project, which will not be forgotten easily. To accumulate over a long period will be benecial to knowledge
accumulation.
S16: After writing blogs, blogs can enhance memory and act as knowledge database which can accumulate and broaden knowledge in any
time.

4.4. Discussion

The study result revealed that e-portfolios had a signicantly positive effect on students knowledge amassment. This result reminds
teachers that e-portfolios can be integrated into their instructions and enhance students abilities on knowledge amassment. Students in the
experimental group had signicantly better knowledge amassment and four constructs after using e-portfolios than before. Students using
e-portfolios had signicantly better knowledge amassment and four constructs than students without using e-portfolios, which was

Table 4
KMO and Bartletts test of sphericity.

Knowledge amassment KMO Bartletts test of sphericity

Chi-square Sig.
Knowledge acquisition .839 304.705 .000***
Knowledge integration .865 312.345 .000***
Knowledge storage .879 363.340 .000***
Knowledge accumulation .854 397.775 .000***
Overall .849 3171.143 .000***

***p < .001.

 C.-C. Chang et al. / Computers & Education 72 (2014) 187195 193

Table 5
Factor analysis.

Knowledge amassment Item Factor loading Eigenvalue Explained variance Cronbachs a

Knowledge acquisition 5. .702 3.663 45.783 .877
4. .700
3. .697
1. .693
2. .626
Knowledge integration 4. .790 3.778 47.221 .876
2. .775
1. .743
5. .730
3. .559
Knowledge storage 1. .842 4.227 46.962 .890
4. .755
3. .720
2. .701
5. .597
Knowledge accumulation 5 .779 4.286 47.627 .886
1. .746
4. .697
3. .651
2. .642
Overall .965

Table 6
A summary of t-test for the differences in knowledge amassment of the experimental group between pretest and posttest.

Knowledge amassment Pretest Posttest t Sig.

Mean SD Mean SD
Acquisition 31.137 .423 33.655 .430 6.237 .023*
Integration 31.407 .485 33.615 .478 6.013 .041*
Storage 34.182 .593 38.452 .572 8.632 .003**
Accumulation 34.927 .536 37.941 .525 8.032 .006**
Overall 132.638 1.5264 143.663 1.63 32.179 .008**

*p < .05, **p < .01.

consistent with some studies stating that portfolios are a facilitator for knowledge-management behavior (Bozhko & Heinrich, 2011;
Budak & Budak, 2011; Lorenzo & Ittelson, 2005; Palmer et al., 2009; Tochel et al., 2009). However, constructs of knowledge management
were not discussed in these studies, whereas empirical research was applied in the present study for conrming the construct of knowledge
management - knowledge amassment.
The study results were also consistent with the study done by Berrill and Addison (2010) suggesting that reecting and thinking in the e-
portfolios enables knowledge to be accumulated into complete knowledge, and the study done by Peet et al. (2011) conrming that
knowledge can be presented and integrated in e-portfolios. However, only theories and knowledge accumulation were discussed in the
study done by Berrill and Addison, and only effects of integrative learning, not knowledge management, were discussed in the study of Peet
et al. Empirical research was applied in the present study for conrming the four constructs of knowledge amassment (i.e. knowledge
acquisition, integration, storage, and accumulation). This result showed that knowledge amassment can be an indicator of the effects of
using e-portfolios for teachers and students. In the past, most studies about e-portfolios focused on learning performance or learning

Table 7
MANCOVA on both groups knowledge amassment.

Source Knowledge amassment SS df MS F Sig. Effect size

Covariance (Pretest) Knowledge acquisition 539.471 1 539.471 55.100 .000*** .359
Knowledge integration 507.738 1 507.738 64.210 .000*** .382
Knowledge storage 739.007 1 739.007 62.669 .000*** .376
Knowledge accumulation 756.027 1 756.027 53.927 .000*** .353
Overall 10,051.193 1 10,051.193 109.369 .000*** .563
Between-group Knowledge acquisition 151.386 1 151.386 19.145 .000*** .186
Knowledge integration 118.900 1 118.900 12.144 .001** .126
Knowledge storage 395.562 1 395.562 28.215 .000*** .251
Knowledge accumulation 285.084 1 285.084 24.176 .000*** .223
Overall 3587.244 1 3587.244 39.033 .000*** .315
Within-group Knowledge acquisition 822.421 84 9.791
Knowledge integration 664.225 84 7.907
Knowledge storage 990.550 84 11.792
Knowledge accumulation 1177.626 84 14.019
Overall 7811.664 84 91.902

**p < .01, ***p < .001.

194 C.-C. Chang et al. / Computers & Education 72 (2014) 187195

Table 8
Descriptive statistics for both groups knowledge amassment.

Knowledge amassment Experimental group Control group

Mean SD Mean SD
Knowledge acquisition 33.655 .430 31.019 .420
Knowledge integration 33.615 .478 31.279 .468
Knowledge storage 38.452 .572 34.191 .559
Knowledge accumulation 37.941 .525 34.323 .513
Overall 143.663 1.63 130.812 1.25

strategies (Alexander & Golja, 2007; Chuang, 2010; Herner-Patnode & Lee, 2009; Tochel et al., 2009). Currently, there is a lack of studies
examining effects of e-portfolios on knowledge amassment, so the present study is considerable important. The study results in the present
study can be a reference for people who promote e-portfolios.
Among the four constructs, knowledge storage had the greatest effect followed by knowledge accumulation, and knowledge integration
had the smallest effect. This outcome showed that blog-based portfolios had a signicant effect on knowledge of storage and accumulation
but less effect on knowledge integration probably because knowledge amassment is a combination of knowledge storage and accumulation,
and knowledge is essentially difcult to be integrated. Therefore, these outcomes are rational. The results can inform teachers and students
focusing on knowledge storage and accumulation when using blog-based portfolios in the future can enhance that students knowledge
amassment. Moreover, teachers should enhance activities of knowledge integration in order to facilitate the effect of e-portfolios on
knowledge integration.
According to the reection contents from the students in the experimental group, students expressed that blog-based portfolios with a
function of knowledge accumulation were benecial to their knowledge acquisition, integration, storage, and accumulation. However, there
were students mentioning the problem of blogs posted on the Internet. The prescription of effectiveness of knowledge may be lost because
its long-time post or they close the blog. Hence, those teachers or students who want to use blog-based portfolios need to pay attention to
the prescription or effectiveness of blogs on the Internet in order to conrm the effect of knowledge amassment. Furthermore, a function of
search is also needed for knowledge storage, so those designers who want to design blogs or knowledge databases also need to pay attention
to functions for categorizing and searching for information. Categorization and search must be concise and rational for users to search for
knowledge conveniently.

5. Conclusion and implication

Due to the limitation of the number of the participants, the researcher in the present study could only assign them into two groups. For
future experiment, a third group using paper-based portfolios can be formed for comparison. Students in the experimental group used blogs
to create e-portfolios. However, there are many other types of tools for creating e-portfolios, such as FrontPage, Facebook, Plurk, Twitter, and
Wiki. Therefore, one of the limitations is that the study results may not be generalized to other types of e-portfolios. Can these different
types of e-portfolios also enhance knowledge amassment? The differences in knowledge amassment among different types of e-portfolios
can be compared in future studies. For instance, Wiki contains a strong function for editing, which allows users to write and edit jointly. Do
wiki-based portfolios have a better effect on learners knowledge amassment and knowledge management? This should be further
examined. Additionally, effects of e-portfolios on other constructs of knowledge management, such as knowledge sharing and knowledge
innovation, can be examined because knowledge sharing and innovation are crucial constructs of knowledge management and have similar
features with e-portfolios.

References

Alavi, M., & Tiwana, A. (2003). Knowledge management: the information technology dimension. In M. Easterby-Smith, & M. A. Lyles (Eds.), The Blackwell handbook of
organizational learning and knowledge management (pp. 104121). Malden, MA: Blackwell.
Alexander, S., & Golja, T. (2007). Using students experience to derive quality in an e-learning system: an institutions perspective. Educational Technology & Society, 10(2), 1733.
Artail, H. A. (2006). Application of KM measures to the impact of a specialized groupware system on corporate productivity and operations. Information & Management, 43(4),
551564.
Award, E. M., & Ghaziri, H. M. (2004). Knowledge management. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Perason Education/Prentice Hall.
Barrett, H. C. (2010). Balancing the two faces of ePortfolios. Educao, Formao & Tecnologias, 3(1), 614.
Berrill, D. P., & Addison, E. (2010). Repertoires of practice: re-framing teaching portfolios. Teaching and Teacher Education, 26(5), 11781185.
Bozhko, Y., & Heinrich, E. (2011). Concept map-based framework for learner-centered knowledge management in ePortfolios. In Proceedings of 2011 11th IEEE international
conference on advanced learning technologies (pp. 160162). Athens, GA: IEEE Computer Society.
Bryman, A., & Cramer, D. (2011). Quantitative data analysis with IBM SPSS 17, 18 & 19: A guide for social scientists. London, UK: Psychology Press.
Budak, A., & Budak, I. (2011). Assessing perceptions of pre-service teachers teacher knowledge through portfolios. Procedia Social and Behavioral Sciences, 15(1), 13761380.
Chang, C. C., & Tseng, K. H. (2011). Using a web-based portfolio assessment system to elevate project-based learning performances. Interactive Learning Environments, 19(3),
211230.
Chuang, H. H. (2010). Weblog-based electronic portfolios for student teachers in Taiwan. Educational Technology Research & Development, 58(2), 211227.
Donate, M. J., & Guadamillas, F. (2010). The effect of organizational culture on knowledge management practices and innovation. Knowledge and Process Management, 17(2),
8294.
Fernandez, O. L., & Illera, L. R. (2009). Investigating university students adaptation to a digital learner course portfolio. Computers & Education, 52(3), 608616.
Fong, S. W., & Choi, K. Y. (2009). The processes of knowledge management in professional services rms in the construction industry: a critical assessment of both theory and
practice. Journal of Knowledge Management, 13(2), 110126.
Franco, M., & Mariano, S. (2007). Information technology repositories and knowledge management processes. The Journal of Information and Knowledge Management Systems,
37(4), 440451.
Gravetter, F. J., & Wallnau, L. B. (2008). Statistics for behavioral science (7th ed.). Belmont, CA: Thomson.
Hair, J. F., Black, W. C., Babin, B. J., & Anderson, R. E. (2010). Multivariate data analysis: A global perspective (7th ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson Prentice Hall.
Herner-Patnode, L. M., & Lee, H. J. (2009). A capstone experience for preservice teachers: building a web-based portfolio. Educational Technology & Society, 12(2), 101110.
Howell, D. C. (2010). Statistical methods for psychology (7th ed.). Independence, KY: Cengage Learning.
 C.-C. Chang et al. / Computers & Education 72 (2014) 187195 195

Kelley, T. L. (1939). The selection of upper and lower groups for the validation of test items. Journal of Educational Psychology, 30(1), 1724.
Kimber, K., Pillay, H., & Richards, C. (2007). Techno literacy and learning: an analysis of the quality of knowledge in electronic representations of understanding. Computers &
Education, 48(1), 5979.
Lee, K. C., Lee, S., & Kang, I. W. (2005). KMPI: measuring knowledge management performance. Information and Management, 42(3), 469482.
Liebowitz, J. (2012). Knowledge management handbook: Collaboration and social networking. Boca Raton, FL: CRC Press.
Lin, B. W., & Wu, J. H. (2010). How does knowledge depth moderate the performance of internal and external knowledge sourcing strategies? Technovation, 30(11/12), 582
589.
Loew, R., Kuemmel, K., Ruprecht, J., Bleimann, U., & Walsh, P. (2007). Approaches for personalized knowledge retrieval. Personalised Knowledge Retrieval Internet Research,
17(1), 4960.
Lorenzo, G., & Ittelson, J. (2005). An overview of institutional e-portfolios. EDUCAUSE Learning Initiative. Retrieved April 25, 2013 from http://www.educause.edu/ir/library/pdf/
ELI3002.pdf.
Lu, P. C. (2007). The integration of blog platform and e-portfolio in art assessment. The International Journal of Arts Education, 2(5), 154185.
Mansingh, G., Osei-Bryson, K. M., & Reichgelt, H. (2009). Issues in knowledge access, retrieval and sharing case studies in a Caribbean health sector. Expert Systems with
Applications, 36, 28532863.
Palmer, S., Holt, D., Hall, W., & Ferguson, C. (2009). An evaluation of an online student portfolio for the development of engineering graduate attributes. Computer Applications
in Engineering Education, 19(3), 447456.
Peet, M., Lonn, S., Gurin, P., Boyer, K. P., Matney, M., Marra, T., et al. (2011). Fostering integrative knowledge through ePortfolios. International Journal of ePortfolio, 1(1), 1131.
Plessis, T., & Toit, A. S. A. (2006). Knowledge management and legal practice. International Journal of Information Management, 26(5), 360371.
Tochel, C., Haig, A., Hesketh, A., Cadzow, A., Beggs, K., Colthart, I., et al. (2009). The effectiveness of portfolios for post-graduate assessment and education: BEME guide no 12.
Medical Teacher, 31(4), 299318.