Running head: ELECTRONIC PORTFOLIOS WITH K-3 STUDENTS 1

Effects of Electronic Portfolios as an Assessment Tool with K-3 Students

Renee Hudson
Montgomery County Public Schools/UMUC
ELECTRONIC PORTFOLIOS WITH K-3 STUDENTS 2

Abstract
This paper explores the uses for, and the benefits of, portfolios and electronic portfolios as
assessment tools. One common denominator between the uses and benefits of portfolios and e-
portfolios is the reflection process. This reflection process involves student self-assessment and
teachers instructional decision-making. Electronic portfolios can be used as an assessment for
learning or as an assessment of learning. Teacher training that teaches using modeled reflective
language and organizational strategies to meet standards can benefit this reflection process and ensure
there is a balance between using electronic portfolios as a process portfolio and as a product portfolio.
The findings of two studies on the use of electronic portfolios in elementary schools are discussed.
There were limitations to the studies, but a consistent benefit from both studies is that teachers gained
insight into their instruction. This reflection process is an effect of using an electronic portfolio as a
writing assessment tool with K-3 students.
Keywords: electronic portfolios, alternative assessment
ELECTRONIC PORTFOLIOS WITH K-3 STUDENTS 3

Effects of Electronic Portfolios as an Assessment Tool with K-3 Students

Introduction
Portfolios were introduced as an alternative assessment tool for educators almost 30 years
ago and many studies were done to research their different uses and benefits. When electronic
portfolios (e-portfolios) emerged, more studies were done to research the uses and benefits of e-
portfolios. These studies were done with participants at a variety of grade levels, from elementary to
higher education. Electronic portfolios create opportunities for students to not only create and revise
their writing, but also provide a means of sharing their work. Both portfolios and electronic portfolios
share similar benefits and problems. The technical tools involved with electronic portfolios add
additional benefits to the use of portfolios or e-portfolios as assessment tools. One of the important
stages in portfolio or electronic portfolio development is the reflection stage. This paper will explore
the research that exists to address the question: What is the effect of using an electronic portfolio as a
writing assessment tool with K-3 students?
Portfolios in Assessment
A portfolio can be defined as an organized collection of student work and self-reflections
that helps paint a portrait of the whole child. The systematic process of collecting, selecting, and
reflecting upon learning is what makes a portfolio dynamic and meaningful (Hill & Ruptic, 1994).
In the elementary school writing classroom, it is a collection of artifacts that can be passed on with
the child to show their progress throughout their school career.
Lots of research has been done on portfolios as an alternative assessment tool, as this type
of assessment is more authentic than standardized testing. However, most of the research studies I
found on portfolios (and e-portfolios) were those used in higher education. There were also many
articles based on these higher education research studies. However, I did find several studies about
the use of portfolios and elementary students, but only two research studies done with elementary
school students and e-portfolios. Both of these research studies were conducted on participants who
were third and fourth graders. My question focused on K-3 students, so this was the closest to my
chosen age group.
Most of the early literature on portfolios argued that they were more beneficial and
individualized than standardized testing. Portfolios can and should reflect the strengths, needs, and
individuality of each unique student and that the portfolio process resists standardization,
simplification, and formalization (Stewart, 1993). In my classroom, I have found that if portfolios
ELECTRONIC PORTFOLIOS WITH K-3 STUDENTS 4

are used only as an assessment and not as a learning tool, they lose a lot of their value in the
elementary writing classroom. They have the potential for increasing student self-assessment and
improving teacher instructional decision-making.
The use of portfolio assessment in education emerged in the late 1980s, primarily in
college writing classrooms to address the needs for accountability (Barrett, 2007). Rhodes and
Shanklin (1993) claim the purpose of appropriate assessment in early childhood education is to
inform others about student learning and teacher instruction and to address accountability concerns.
Due to the amount of research done on portfolios during the 90s that favored portfolios as an
alternative assessment, portfolios became increasingly popular. Interestingly, in the 90s, I created
portfolios with my first graders. Their kindergarten teachers passed their portfolios on to me and I, in
turn, passed mine on to second grade. I remember that the appeal of portfolios then was their
accountability. We could show other teachers and parents how students were doing and have
documentation of their growth.
Due to the large amount of literature written in the 90s about traditional paper and pencil
portfolios and the fact that these traditional portfolios are so similar to e-portfolios, I feel that it is
relevant to consider this research. Herman and Winters wrote a research review in 1994 which
discusses the criticism of traditional tests. (Herman & Winters, 1994) They also challenge if there is
evidence that proves whether or not portfolios encourage teachers and schools to focus on important
student outcomes, provide parents and the community with credible evidence of student achievement,
and inform policy and practice at every level of the educational system (Herman & Winters, 1994).
They had difficulty finding studies that either report technical data or employ accepted research
methods (Herman & Winters, 1994). Herman and Winters (1994) address the challenges of
assuring the technical quality, equity and feasibility of portfolios as assessments. By the late 90s, my
school had completely stopped using portfolios with the students altogether. We had not used them
for assessment, just as a collection of artifacts, so they had lost their value. I found that this continues
to be a concern with electronic portfolios.
Uses and Benefits of Portfolios
Although there are challenges with using portfolios as assessments, there are other uses of
portfolios that must be considered. Portfolios are used by many professionals, such as artists, models,
writer, architects and photographers. There are three main uses for electronic portfolios: for students
ELECTRONIC PORTFOLIOS WITH K-3 STUDENTS 5

while studying, for graduates while moving into or through the workforce, and for institutions for
(program) assessment or accreditation purposes (Butler, 2006).
In the elementary writing classroom, portfolios can be used either for their process or as a
product. When used for their process, portfolios can be a valuable learning tool. When used as a
product, portfolios can be used for assessments. It was this process used in portfolios that was first
considered a benefit of portfolios. A study on portfolios in a first grade classroom found three benefits
of portfolios: 1) Portfolios communicate to families, 2) Students learn the skills of self-assessment
and 3) Portfolios guide teachers instructional decision-making (Benson & Smith, 1998). I see that
the benefits of self-assessment and instruction decision-making are both forms of reflection about the
writing process. The writing process can be difficult to teach to beginning writers. In the same study
of portfolios in a first grade classroom, all teachers claimed that as a result of the portfolio data, they
incorporated more creative writing in their classroom and spent more time teaching the writing
process (Benson & Smith, 1998).
Problems With Portfolios
According to the research, there were several problems associated with using portfolios
effectively. One problem is that teachers are not given proper training. In an older study on portfolios
(1998), teacher frustration wasevident at the beginning of this study primarily based on lack of
time to assess, lack of in-service training and portfolios, and assessment inconsistencies between
individual teachers and schools (Benson & Smith, 1998). Also, there was a lack of time for teachers
to provide appropriate feedback. Research has shown that teachers find portfolio assessment to be
rewarding but very time consuming (Benson & Smith, 1998). I imagine that carrying the portfolios
of an entire class can be a prohibitive task. I believe that these problems were primary reasons that
portfolios were not effective in my school in the 90s. The teachers were never trained how to use
them as a process tool. We didnt even showcase the portfolios as a product assessment. We simply
collected work and passed it on to the next teacher.
E portfolios (as an Assessment Tool)
An e-portfolio (electronic portfolio) is an electronic collection of evidence that shows your
learning journey over time (Barrett, 2011). The key aspect of an e-portfolio is your reflection on the
evidence, such as why it was chosen and what you learned from the process of developing your e-
portfolio (Barrett, 2011). I liked this definition because it specifically addresses the idea that a
portfolio can be used for reflection.
 ELECTRONIC PORTFOLIOS WITH K-3 STUDENTS 6

Benefits of an E-Portfolio
There are many benefits to using an e-portfolio as opposed to a traditional paper portfolio.
For one, managing the sheer volume of material that might be collected over 12 years of school may
become unwieldy (Siegle, 2002). Technology is an obvious solution to this problem. Teachers and
students can easily organize, transfer (?) and share an e-portfolio with other students, teachers,
parents and administrators.
Using technology during writing can be very motivating for young students. Writing with
paper and pencil can be a daunting task for young students, and they find writing on a computer
motivating and fun. One of the surprises found in a collaborative effort (called Technology 2000)
between a university, a school district and a business partner was that first grade students who were
reluctant writers with a pencil readily expressed themselves via the computer (Holt, McAllister &
Ingram, 2001). Based on the results in Teacher Education programs, Barrett & Wilkerson (2004)
proposed that there are developmental levels of portfolio implementation in terms of motivation:
extrinsic motivation, mixed motivation and intrinsic motivation. With more learner control, students
intrinsic motivation increased. One schools approach to portfolios focuses on student ownership of
the portfolio (read from the bottom to the top in order of maturity):
Child-organized portfolio
Teacher-and-child-organized portfolio
Progress portfolio
Showcase portfolio or achievement portfolio
Teacher-organized portfolio or curriculum portfolio
Collection of childs work
Folder of childs work (Barrett & Wilkerson, 2007).
Thinking back to my own experience with portfolios, our school had not progressed to
portfolios that involved very much student ownership.
ELECTRONIC PORTFOLIOS WITH K-3 STUDENTS 7

Source: http://electronicportfolios.org/systems/paradigms.html
Findings in Two Elementary Schools
Unfortunately, empirical evidence documenting the effects of portfolios is sparse (>>>).
As I have said before, most of the research studies on portfolios and e-portfolios were done on higher
education students, not elementary students. There were two studies on the use of e-portfolios with
elementary students. The first study took place in 2006-2007 in two multi-age classes of third and
fourth graders in North Texas suburban public schools (McLeod & Vasinda, 2009). The study used
both qualitative data and quantitative survey data. The second study on the use of e-portfolios with 53
elementary students took place with 2 teachers with third and fourth graders in a K-8 elementary
school in the Southwest. (Moritz & Christie, 2005). The students used their writing workshop time to
compose their writing and a portfolio time to publish their work on the computer (Moritz & Christie,
2005). A Friday Publishing Workshop was added to take the students through the publishing process
(Moritz & Christie, 2005).
When comparing these two studies, the benefits found in the first study (Texas) are very
similar to the benefits found in the previous research on the benefits of portfolios as assessment. The
benefits found in the second study (Southwest) were inconsistent with the previous research. It was
surprising that the students in this study were less positive about the computer usage. The one
consistent benefit from previous research and both of these studies is that teachers gained insight into
their instruction and were able to adjust it (teachers instructional decision-making).

North Texas Southwest

(McLeod & Vasinda)
Benefits Parent communication
Student self-assessment
Teacher insight
(Moritz & Christie)
Teacher refined and
adjusted their instruction
Improved writing skills
Improved participation in
writing process
ELECTRONIC PORTFOLIOS WITH K-3 STUDENTS 8

Improved technical skills

Ability to complete a
complex project
Challenges/Changes Change: Students less positive about
Scan and upload artifacts computer usage at the end
Change: of the project
Reflective interviews added
Created by Renee Hudson
These two studies have implications for determining the effect of using an electronic
portfolio as a writing assessment tool with K-3 students. Based on these two studies alone, it is not
fair to draw any conclusions about the effect of e-portfolios used as a writing assessment tool with K-
3 students. The strongest evidence from these two studies is that e-portfolios give teachers an insight
into their writing instruction and provide new insight so that teachers can modify their instruction to
meet the needs of their students.
Stages of E-Portfolio Development
Helen Barrett created 5 stages of electronic portfolio development:
1) Defining the portfolio context and goals,
2) The Working Portfolio,
3) The Reflective Portfolio,
4) The Connected Portfolio, and
5) The Presentation Portfolio (Barrett, 2000).
During stage 1, the Defining the portfolio context and goals stage, the audience is
identified and the technology format that will be used is identified. (Barrett, 2000). Stage 2, The
Working Portfolio, is the planning stage. Considering which standards or goals that are being
demonstrated should help determine the types of portfolio artifacts to collect (Barrett, 2000). Stage
3, The Reflective Portfolio, is the stage where students reflect on the significance of the artifacts
chosen for the portfolio in relationship to specific goals (Barrett, 2000). The Connected Portfolio
in stage 4 is where students make the appropriate adjustments or connections to their standards and
goals and prepare their portfolio for The Presentation Portfolio (Barrett, 2000). The Presentation
Portfolio in stage 5 is where students share their finished product (Barrett, 2000).
The Reflective Portfolio- assessments of learning and assessments for learning
As mentioned before, portfolios and e-portfolios can be used for their process or as a
product. Instead of viewing electronic portfolios solely as an assessment, which is the product, it is
this reflective portfolio, stage 3, which can be the most powerful in the elementary writing
ELECTRONIC PORTFOLIOS WITH K-3 STUDENTS 9

classroom. Portfolios support reflection that can help students understand their own learning and
provide a richer picture of student work to document growth over time (Barrett, 2007). This
reflection will give more learner control, which will improve students motivation in writing.
E-portfolios are an authentic combination of process and product. The process component
of e-portfolios allows for reflection, self-assessment and continued learning. If assessments of
learning provide evidence of achievement for public reporting, then assessments for learning serve to
help students learn more. The crucial distinction is between assessment to determine the status of
learning and assessment to promote greater learning (Stiggins, 2002) Although e-portfolios are often
thought of as an assessment of learning (a high-stakes assessment model), (Barrett, 2007) its real
value comes when e-portfolios are used as an assessment for learning (as a tool to bring about self-
awareness and metacognition) (Barrett, 2007).
There are a couple of things that teachers can do to facilitate the reflection process. One is to
provide feedback and the other is to model reflective language. As mentioned before, one of the
problems teachers faced with portfolios is finding time to provide feedback. Although teachers only
have to have access to a computer to provide feedback with e-portfolios, this feedback is extremely
important to the process. In an article about a portfolio initiative, students wrote a personal critique
for every item of work they included in their portfolio (Ahn, 2004). Teachers would log on to their
computers and provide feedback in response to the critiques. (Ahn, 2004). Displaying a students
reflection with teacher feedback allows both students and teachers to reflect on their understandings
of the learning standard (Ahn, 2004). Reflective language must be modeled, orally rehearsed, and
practiced so that students internalize the true nature of reflecting (Courtney & Abodeeb, 1999).
Although portfolios are most effective when student-centered, it is also important to keep
the portfolio linked or connected to the elementary writing standards. Neither of the two studies on e-
portfolios with elementary students mentioned if the e-portfolios were linked to standards at all. My
fear is that e-portfolios become so student-centered that the curriculum and writing standards wont
get much consideration. Several of the studies done with college-aged participants described an
organizational strategy for teachers to manage meeting standards with e-portfolio use. One particular
article described a strategy used by one teacher. She followed the steps outline in Figure 1 to design
a chart that would help (her) reflect on all the data (Galley, 2000). This organizational strategy with
standards can direct a teachers reflection process in a way that not only focuses on the process, but
also on the assessment purpose, of the e-portfolio.
ELECTRONIC PORTFOLIOS WITH K-3 STUDENTS 10

Decide on a question: Could I match evidence of student learning to a standards-based curriculum and to the
standards themselves?
Separate the question variables into explicit categoriesstudent portfolio evidence.content standards
classroom lessons. These become the column headings.
List in the first column the total contents of the evidence. For ease in understanding, I wrote in bold the actual
evidence piece and quoted the student whenever possible.
Match standards with listed evidence. What does evidence show about understanding the standards?
Analyze classroom activities. How did the student acquire the evidence?
Use the developed chart to assess teacher effectiveness. What is going well? What is missing? What will I do
differently?

Figure 1. Steps to Designing an Organizer (Galley, 2000)

Source: Galley, S. (2000). Portfolio as mirror: Student and teacher learning reflected through the standards. Language
Arts, 78(2), 121-27.
Implications of Research
One implication of this research is there needs to be more research done on e-portfolios with
elementary students. If e-portfolios are used in the elementary writing classroom, teacher training
should be provided that informs teachers of the importance of using e-portfolios as assessments for
learning, as well as assessments of learning. They should be trained that the reflective aspect is
extremely important and that portfolios will be most effective if this reflection includes student self-
assessment and teachers instructional decision-making.
There were only two research studies done with e-portfolios and elementary students. No
studies were conducted with younger elementary students (K-2). The two studies gave conflicting
and inconsistent results. Although e-portfolios are considered an alternative assessment to
standardized testing, there should be a balance between using e-portfolios as a process portfolio and
as a product portfolio. Although a student-centered portfolio increases student motivation, more
research needs to be done on the most effective way to organize standards to facilitate a focused
teacher reflection process.
Overall, the research shows that the reflection process is beneficial for students as a self-
assessment, and for teachers for instructional decision-making. Although the two studies conducted
with e-portfolios and elementary students, the only fair conclusion that can be drawn is that the effect
of using an e-portfolio as a writing assessment tool with K-3 students comes through this reflection
process.
ELECTRONIC PORTFOLIOS WITH K-3 STUDENTS 11

There were lots of limitations to the two studies. Neither included details about any
organizational strategies that teachers used to collect data on how the students portfolios aligned with
the standards being taught. The North Texas study only had the students give an oral justification of
their portfolio selection choice and there was no evidence of teacher feedback. There was also no
modeling of reflective language in the North Texas study (McLeod & Vasinda, ?>>). The Southwest
study included a reflection in the students reflection log. Teachers did model the reflection process in
this study and the teacher provided feedback by meeting with students in small groups (Moritz &
Christie, >>).
If more research is done on e-portfolios and their effect as an assessment tool in the K-3
writing classroom, I would like to see organizational strategies that will help focus the teachers
reflection process on standards in these future studies. Also, future studies should consider addressing
the challenges of assuring the technical quality, equity and feasibility (Herman & Winters, 1994) of
portfolios as assessments, as Herman and Winters suggested.
Conclusion
To conclude, the research shows that the reflection process is the aspect of electronic
portfolios that allows for student self-assessment and teachers instructional decision-making.
Electronic portfolios can be used as an assessment for learning or as an assessment of learning. The
current research on electronic portfolios with elementary students is limited and more research needs
to be done to determine their effectiveness in the elementary writing classroom.
References
Ahn, J. (2004). Electronic portfolios: Blending technology, accountability & assessment. T H E
Journal, 31(9), 12.
Barrett, H. C. (2000, April). Create your own electronic portfolio: Using off-the-shelf software to
showcase your own or student work. Retrieved November 26, 2012, from
http://electronicportfolios.org/portfolios/iste2k.html
Barrett, H. C., & Wilkerson, J. (2004). Conflicting paradigms in electronic portfolio approaches.
Retrieved November 26, 2012, from http://electronicportfolios.org/systems/paradigms.html
Butler, P. (2006, October). A review of the literature on portfolios and electronic
portfolios(eportfolios). Retrieved November 26, 2012, from
http://akoaotearoa.ac.nz/community/ eportfolios-new-zealand/resources/pages/review-
literature-portfolios-and-electronic-portfo
ELECTRONIC PORTFOLIOS WITH K-3 STUDENTS 12

Barrett, H. C. (2007). Researching electronic portfolios and learner engagement: The

REFLECT initiative. Journal of Adolescent & Adult Literacy. 50(6). 436-449. Retrieved November
26, 2012, from http://dx.doi.org.ezproxy.umuc.edu/10.1598/JAAL.50.6.2
Barrett, H. C. (2011). Balancing the two faces of e-portfolios. Retrieved November 26,
2012, from http://electronicportfolios.org/balance/balancingarticle2.pdf
Benson, T. R., & Smith, L. J. (1998). Portfolios in first grade: Four teachers learn to use alternative
assessment. Early Childhood Education Journal, 25(3), 173.
Courtney, A. M., & Abodeeb, T. L. (1999). Diagnostic-reflective portfolios. Reading Teacher, 52(7),
708.
Galley, S. (2000). Portfolio as mirror: Student and teacher learning reflected through the standards.
Language Arts, 78(2), 121-27.
Herman, J., Winters, L. (1994). Portfolio research: A slim collection. Educational Leadership, 52(2),
48.
Hill, B., & Ruptic, C. (1994). Practical Aspects of Authentic Assessment: Putting the Pieces
Together. Norwood, MA: Christopher-Gordon Publishers, Inc.
Holt, D. M., McAllister, P., & Ingram, E. (2001). Technology 2000: Using electronic portfolios for
the performance assessment of teaching and learning. Computers in the Schools, 18(4), 185.
McLeod, J. K., & Vasinda, S. (2009). Electronic portfolios: Perspectives of students, teachers and
parents. Education & Information Technologies, 14(1), 29-38. Doi:10.1007/s10639-008-
9077-5
Moritz, J., & Christie, A. A. (2005). It's elementary! Using electronic portfolios with young students.
Retrieved November 26, 2012, from http://www.west.asu.edu/achristie/547/Moritz-
Christie.pdf
Rhodes, L. K., & Shanklin, N. L. (1993). Windows into literacy: Assessing learners, K-8.
Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann.
Siegle, D. (2002). Creating a living portfolio: Documenting student growth with electronic
portfolios. Gifted Child Today, 25(3), 60.
Stewart, R. A. (1993). Portfolios: Agents of change (have you read?). Reading Teacher, 46(6), 522-
24.
Stiggins, R. J. (2002). Assessment crisis: The absence of assessment for learning. Phi Delta Kappan,
83(10), 758.
ELECTRONIC PORTFOLIOS WITH K-3 STUDENTS 13