Chapter - Digital

1
DIGITAL PORTFOLIOS AND COMMUNICATION
Running Head: DIGITAL PORTFOLIOS AND COMMUNICATION

2
Abstract
There is a clear consensus that students need to be proficient in the use of the digital
technologies to help them become knowledgeable participants in an era of global
information sharing (International Reading Association, 2009). Acknowledging this, the
current study was situated in the belief that writers, when engaged in online composition
and the creation of digital portfolios, engage in processes that differ from traditional
pencil-paper types of writing. A qualitative approach was utilized to examine student
writing samples and reflections over a two year time frame as the students transitioned
from traditional writing portfolios to those created and maintained digitally on a wiki.
The results demonstrated that digital portfolios provided a platform for students to
communicate, express their ideas, share their understandings, and collaboratively
construct meaning with an authentic audience. Correspondingly, it also demonstrated the
necessity of adjusting teaching practices to accommodate for conditions that arise from
the unique opportunities presented by the digital environment.

3
Using Digital Portfolios to Enhance Students’ Capacity for Communication about
Learning
Introduction
In 2003, the National Commission on Writing in America’s Schools and Colleges
pleaded for writing revolution on what they deemed the “Neglected ‘R’”. The
commissioners of the task force noted the plethora of resources and research studies
devoted to arithmetic and reading instruction while lamenting the lack of attention and
time devoted to writing in today’s schools. Ten years later, our world and the way we
write have changed significantly as pens and paper have been replaced with screens,
keyboards, and touch pads. This has ushered in a new generation of writers who have
redefined what it means to be literate (Hansen & Kissel, 2010). In this new literate world,
technology-infused texts are primary within the practices of today’s writers as they
engage with ever-emerging tools to write in communicative, collaborative, and
exploratory ways (Taylor, 2012).
The need for a writing revolution, as well as a technological revolution has not
gone unnoticed by educational stakeholders. The National Council for Teachers of
English (NCTE) identified multiple “opportunities for teachers at all levels to foster
reading and writing in more diverse and participatory contexts” (NCTE, 2007, p. 2).
More recently, the Common Core State Standards Initiative (CCSSI) provided a
framework for teaching the English Language Arts. For K-5 learners, the framework
requires students to “use technology, including the Internet, to produce and publish
writing and to interact and collaborate with others” (Common Core State Standards
4
Initiative, 2010). There is now a statewide and nationwide effort to bridge the writing
and technological gaps that too many students have fallen through in the past decade.
It is within this context that we acknowledge the need to know more about how
young students use technology as writers; to understand how writing is a tool they use to
communicate and collaborate. We must also know practical ways teachers can bring
technology into their classrooms so students have opportunities to engage in
communicative and collaborative acts as writers. This chapter seeks to address this need
as we examine how fourth grade students used technology in their classrooms as a mode
of communication and collaboration while moving from paper-based portfolios to digital
portfolios, thus allowing a third-space for peers to digitally communicate with one
another about their learning.
Theoretical Framework
Sociocultural Theory
Sociocultural theory (Bakhtin, 1981; Scribner & Cole, 1981; Vygotsky, 1978)
addresses both the learner as individual and the learner’s interactions with others in a
specific context. Risko et al. (2008) describe sociocultural theory as “not simply what
happens in the brain of an individual but what happens to the individual in relation to a
social context and the multiple forms of interactions with others” (p. 253). This view
provides an understanding of the individual as continually learning in a context with
others. It also posits that both the teacher and peers can provide assistance and problem-
solve within the context of instruction.
Vygotsky (1978) theorized that knowledge is constructed through social
interaction and the use of language to mediate understanding. A major tenant of this
5
theoretical framework includes the notion that learning cannot be separated from the
social, cultural, and historical context that frames it. Considering this premise, learning is
dependent on the individual learner as well as on the social setting. Meaning is therefore
negotiated through social interactions and is reliant on the social constructs. Within a
classroom, the social nature of learning is exhibited within literacy practices involving
co-constructed meaning through shared ideas and social identities of the teacher and the
students. Construction of thinking and knowing through social interaction demonstrates
the value of shared understanding through collaboration with others. In this paradigm,
researchers emphasize the notion that learning is socially situated.
Writing in the Digital Age
There is little doubt that literacy is undergoing fundamental changes due to
widespread access to various digital tools. As educators, we must use this knowledge to
prepare our students to use new literacies proficiently and effectively, while concurrently
supporting traditional forms of literacy--including writing. We live in a world that is
focused upon social interaction and new tools for communication have emerged,
‘‘changing ways of producing, distributing, exchanging and receiving texts by electronic
means’’ (Lankshear & Knobel, 2003, p. 16). The same tools allow for multi-way
communication, contribution, and collaboration, creating a social space for people to
interact, share, and collaborate (O’Reilly, 2005). Students have the capability to become
both active consumers and producers of various written works. Authorship reaches wider
domains and increases the potential for partnership and creativity as students have the
opportunity to write for a variety of purposes and interact with an authentic audience
6
(Merchant, 2005). The opportunity for feedback and responses from peers and readers
outside of the classroom is greatly enhanced.
The processes writers use to compose texts have also changed (Yancey, 2009).
Within the 20th century paradigm, students composed texts using paper, pencils, and a
multi-step process that included planning, drafting, revising, editing, and publishing.
Often, these processes included different tools (e.g. scissors to cut and paste text during
revision, red pens to mark editing errors) and publication was directed towards an
audience of one (the teacher) or few (classmates). In the 21st century, digital tools have
changed the processes writers use to connect to audiences. In the world of instant
information, planning, revision, and editing are often replaced with a quick draft and an
even quicker push of the publish button. This is most evident in social networking sites,
like Facebook and Twitter, where writers quickly post comments and publish instantly
for an entire virtual world to read. The tools have changed. The audience has widened.
Digital writing and the associated products of students in elementary grades is an
emergent field of inquiry ripe with opportunities for exploration. Recent publications
about the final products of children who compose online have begun to give us some
initial insight about how digital written products look different than traditional ones. A
full review of this research is beyond the scope of this chapter; however, Golberg,
Russell, and Cook (2003) conducted a meta-analysis of 26 studies completed that focused
on the comparison between K–12 students writing with computers vs. paper-and-pencil.
Significant mean effect sizes in favor of computers were found for quantity of writing
(d=.50) and quality of writing (d= .41). A majority of researchers indicated that the
writing process was more collaborative, iterative, and social in computer classrooms as
7
compared with paper-and-pencil environments. Students who used computers while
composing were more engaged and motivated by the use of technology, and produced
writing that was lengthier and of higher quality.
Additional studies (e.g. Crafton, Brennan, & Silvers, 2007; Wollman-Bonilla,
2003) on writing with technology have revealed the importance of an authentic audience
and the opportunity to interact through writing. These investigations and others have
strengthened the importance of creating a community of learners within a shared space
for interaction (see Gee, 2008; Vasudevan, Schultz, & Bateman, 2010). Students who
engaged in these spaces were more likely to plan, analyze, edit, and clarify writing. In
essence, they were more likely to reflect upon their writing within the process (Graham
and Harris, 2007).
Reflection is an important component within writing for a variety of reasons.
First, it offers the opportunity to for students to establish goals and to monitor their
progress towards achieving writing specific goals (Bransford, Brown, & Cocking, 2000).
As teachers teach and reinforce reflective practices within writing, students are more
likely to demonstrate them, eventually incorporating the process into their everyday
writing practices (Griffin, 2003). The challenge, however, is creating authentic contexts
to practice reflection as well as specifically teaching the skills associated with it as
children are unlikely to develop these skills with guidance (Bransford, et al., 2000).
Using Portfolios within Writing Instruction
Writing portfolios represent a traditional method of collecting samples of written
artifacts. Their uses vary, from demonstrating in-process learning/growth over time
through drafts of the same writing assignment (Abrami & Barrett, 2005; Barrett, 2007) to
8
showcasing multiple, finished exemplars to demonstrate proficiency in specific skills
(Denton, 2012). Writing portfolios have resulted in an improved awareness of the
learning process as well as learning outcomes through the creation of portfolios
(Niguidula, 2005). Portfolios have also enhanced students’ communication and
organizational skills (Brown, 2002).
Portfolios represent an important tool to support active reflection by students.
Reflections can include the rationale for the selection of a piece of evidence, a personal
evaluation of the work, and key information learned from the portfolio (Abrami &
Barrett, 2005; Klenowski, Askew, & Carnell, 2006; Smith & Tillema, 2003). In essence,
portfolios create opportunities for students to become direct participants in their learning
as they describe what and how they have learned as well as the challenges that occurred
within the process (Stiggins, 2007; Zubizarreta, 2004).
Zubizarreta (2004) described a model for portfolios that emphasized the
interaction of three elements: reflection, evidence, and collaboration. According to his
research, learning can be accomplished using portfolios when two of the three
components are activated; yet, a combination of all three elements facilitates
opportunities for greater engagement and, potentially, enhanced learning. However,
research on these outcomes has proven challenging, notably due to the variability in
process and context (Barrett, 2007). This is especially true of K-12 research as the
majority of the investigations into portfolio use have come from higher education and
adult education (Barrett, 2007).
Emergence of Digital Portfolios in Education

9
With the emergence of digital tools, educators have the capability of moving the
traditional writing portfolio into an electronic format. According to Abrami and Barrett
(2005), an electronic portfolio is “a digital container capable of storing visual and
auditory content including text, images, video and sound…designed to support a variety
of pedagogical processes and assessment purposes” (p. 2). Digital portfolios can serve
many of the same purposes as the traditional portfolio (Niguidula, 2005). However, they
can also "help students develop the self-awareness required to set their own learning
goals, express their own views of their strengths, weaknesses, and achievements…[and]
be shared with peers, parents, and others who are part of students’ extended network"
(United States Department of Education, 2010, p.12).
Digital portfolios appear to have several benefits unique to the environment, they
can:
 facilitate the use of different formats, including writing that integrates
text, hyptertext, and multimedia elements (Abrami & Barrett, 2005;
Heath, 2005; Wade, Abrami, & Sclater, 2005);
 help students develop and model new technology skills (Abrami &
Barrett, 2005; Wall, Higgins, Miller, & Packard, 2006); and
 distribute writing to a much broader, more authentic audience (Wade et
al., 2005).
The capacity for sharing means the ability to exchange ideas and give/receive feedback is
enhanced (Abrami & Barrett, 2005), potentially creating a community of practice
centered upon the portfolios. Consequently, the elements associated with sociocultural
theories are manifest in practices as feedback and discourse allows students to

10
acknowledge contributions from others as well as take on responsibility for the each
others’ growth (e.g., Bakhtin, 1981; Vygotsky, 1978).
Perhaps the most significant shortcoming associated with digital portfolios in K-
12 contexts is a general lack of research in this area. As technologies continue to emerge,
there still exists a great need for additional knowledge about processes students use to
compose and publish texts in online environments. Investigating the use of digital
portfolios as a means to support children’s writing development offers an opportunity to
expand on what we currently know and may provide important implications for how
technology can further influence our ideas about writing and instruction in the classroom.
The following research was undertaken to continue to refine and expand our knowledge
in this area.
Methodology
For this study, we asked the following question: What happens throughout the
digital portfolio process of fourth and fifth grade students? To answer this question, we
employed an interpretivistic, ethnographic approach to study the culture of one classroom
of students during a two year stretch as they looped from fourth grade to fifth grade with
the same teacher (Erickson, 1986). This approach is intended to acknowledge the
multiple truths that existed in the culture of the classroom. We developed themes by
reading and rereading the collected corpus of field notes, transcripts of conversations, and
interviews. We then compared them with the written documents and digital portfolios
created by the students. To describe their digital portfolio processes, thick descriptions of
the classroom acts were employed to explain how participants engaged in this process
(Geertz, 1973). The goal of the description was to make clear the events that occurred in
11
the classroom. Descriptions of the classroom events were collected as field notes and then
systematically studied to acknowledge emerging patterns and themes.
Site and Population Selection
The chosen classroom was a fourth/fifth grade classroom in a Southeastern town
in the United States. The school was a publicly funded charter school. The school has
maintained its charter status for over 11 years and is considered one of the most
successful charter schools in the state.
The Classroom Teacher. Diana, a 42-year-old woman of European American
descent, has been an elementary teacher for over 10 years. She is also a former vice
principal. After several years in an administrative position, Diana missed teaching in the
classroom. When the opportunity arose for her to teach within the school, she decided to
enter the classroom.
Students in Diana’s class participated in an hour of daily writing through a
Writer’s Workshop based on Fletcher and Portalupi’s (2000) model for writing
instruction. Each day, children gathered for a mini-lesson based on their writing needs,
then engaged in writing of self-selected topics. In their fifth grade year, students
published four major products for a wide audience: 1) a multigenre book based on their
experiences at a three-day field trip to a coastal island within the state, 2) poetry they
performed for a poetry slam at a local coffee house, 3) an opera in which the students
composed the music and lyrics, created the sets, and performed in front of the school, and
4) a social action research project in which students used writing to enact change for a
cause that was important to them. Many of these published pieces became selections of
their digital portfolios.

12
The Fourth/Fifth Grade Students. This study, conducted over two years,
examined the portfolio process of one classroom of 24 students as they moved from
fourth to fifth grade. Combined, there were 12 boys and 12 girls. The majority of the
students were of European-American descent (n=20). Two students were African
American and two others were of Latino(a) descent. All names included within this
article are pseudonyms to protect the identity of the participants examined in this study.
Data Sources and Procedures
A variety of qualitative research traditions were used to construct this case study
(Dyson & Genishi, 2005; Erickson, 1986; Merriam, 1998). Over the course of 18 months
(9 months in year 1, 9 months in year 2), data were collected on children’s writing
processes and practices. Observations of the class, interviews with the children and
teacher, and written documents of the children were primary sources of data. During Year
1, the researcher collected data in the classroom for the entire school year, once a week,
for 2–3 hr each visit. In total, 37 visits to the classroom were made, which totaled
approximately 82 hours. During Year 2, data were collected during the entire school year
for approximately 2 hours for each visit. Thirty-eight visits were made for a total of 76
hours. During each of these visits, the primary researcher observed and wrote field notes
about the children as they wrote. The children’s conversations were captured using audio
recordings. At the end of each day, the primary researcher elaborated on his field notes
and wrote an analytic memo describing the themes that emerged from the data (Miles &
Huberman, 1994). These field notes were filed with the transcribed interactions and
scanned copies of the children’s writing.
Data Analysis
13
Students’ portfolio processes were analyzed using Jane Hansen’s self-evaluation
process as noted in her book When Learners Evaluate (1998). In her work with various
students across all grade levels, Hansen noticed an emerging self-evaluation process
conducted by the students. This process involved a self-evaluative loop in which students
collected, selected, reflected, projected, and affected, using artifacts from their reading
and writing.
The primary researcher noticed a similar process (Figure 1) within the fourth/fifth
grade classroom with one notable change when students projected their digital portfolios:
students enacted affection through connection. The commenting feature within the
digital portfolios allowed students to offer responses to their peers in the forms of
comments, questions, compliments, and personal connections.
________________
Insert Figure 1 here
________________
Figure 1. The portfolio process in the classroom
The primary researcher used an interpretivist paradigm to scour the corpus of data
to analyze how students enacted a self-evaluation process using their digital portfolios
(Erickson, 1986). Interpretation of these data came from the researcher’s understanding
of the group interactions that occurred as he was embedded in the classroom for extensive
periods of time. A constant comparative analysis (Glaser & Strauss, 1967) was used as
the primary researcher read the transcripts and compared them with the documents
14
collected from the students. Based on these careful readings, the researcher attempted to
capture the essence of the children’s compositions and his interpretations of those
compositions (Dilthey, 1911/1977).
A recursive analytic process was employed to analyze the data (Miles &
Huberman, 1994). From the corpus of data, the field notes, transcripts, and writing
documents were reduced into one- to two-page analytic memos that summarized
emerging themes. Through this reduction technique, patterns emerged.
To answer the research question, the researcher poured through the analytic
memos, student transcripts, and writing documents to find instances where students
engaged in their self-evaluative digital portfolio process. Using the analytic memos and
data displays, themes were made about the students’ digital portfolio process that led to
the conclusions in this study. Based upon these thematic categories the following findings
emerged.
Results
This section unpacks the digital portfolio process that unfolded in Diana’s
classroom through three themes. In Theme One, we explain the collection and selection
phase of the students’ portfolio process. We highlight the many places students searched
to collect pieces of writing for their portfolios, and then examine their selection criteria
for the pieces they chose to place on their digital portfolio wiki. Next, in Theme Two, we
examine the students’ reflection phase of the portfolio process. We reveal their purposes
for the chosen pieces by examining several reflections written on their digital portfolio
wiki page. Finally, in Theme Three, we show how students used their digital portfolio
wikis to project, affect, and connect. These three phases of the process became more
15
important when students switched from a paper-based portfolio system to a digital
portfolio system.
Theme 1: Portfolio Processes—Collect and Select
During this first phase of their portfolio self-assessment, collection and selection,
students gathered all their writing materials from three primary sources: daybooks, in-
progress folders, and published work. Diana made clear that the students could think of
their portfolios in multiple ways; that is, students were not limited to collect and select
items for their portfolio that reflected finished work or even their best work. The
portfolios had to show their thinking and progression as writers over time.
Choosing and selecting artifacts proved to be a complex task for the students.
First, students needed to find artifacts that revealed themselves as learners. That required
careful collection of their materials and thoughtful consideration of their choices. Next,
they had to make decisions. They asked themselves, “Of all the writings before me, what
shows something important that I’ve learned?” This question required thoughtful inquiry
and insight. Finally, they needed to consider audience. That is, not only did they have to
consider their own learning, they had to justify this learning to others—to somehow
reveal themselves through their writings, possibly teach others something about what
they know, and persuade an audience that they learned something as a writer in Diana’s
class.
Collecting artifacts. The artifacts students collected came from three sources:
students’ daybooks, published writing pieces, and folders of work deemed “in progress”.
The daybooks (see Murray, 1968), contained daily life experiences of the writers as well
as observational notes, quotes, snippets of writing, plans, quick drafts, handouts given out
16
in class, newspaper clippings, drawings, outlines, titles, to name a few. In Diana’s
classroom the daybook served as the container where students began their writing. When
Diana gathered students, they brought their daybooks to the carpet. Oftentimes, they took
notes in them, glued in instructional handouts from the teacher, or instantly applied a
lesson to a draft of their writing. For example, one day, when Diana instructed the
students on quotation marks, the students opened their daybooks to a draft and instantly
applied the editing lesson on a piece of their writing.
The daybooks were an important source for the students’ portfolio entries. Of the
95 pieces of writing uploaded onto the students’ digital wiki page, 56 of the pieces came
from their daybooks. This represented the largest majority of student selections. Another
important source for the students’ portfolio entries came from students’ published work.
This came from four major writing projects, which were previously described, that Diana
conducted in the classroom. Of the 95 pieces of writing uploaded onto their digital wiki
pages, 37 pieces came from one of these four published projects. Less influential were
students’ in-progress folders. Only two students selected a piece from that resource.
Selecting artifacts. Student selected artifacts that represented a diverse range of
genres (Table 1). The primary genre was poetry, with almost every child selecting poetry
for at least one portfolio entry. Other selections included informational texts, memoirs,
and persuasive texts. Students were given opportunities to study these genres in depth and
received instructional support as they navigated through the various genres. Other
selections ranged from student-generated quizzes to comics to lessons conducted by the
teacher.
17
Table 1
Genres of Portfolio Selections
Genre Number of
Representational
Portfolio Pieces
Poem 35
Informational Text 18
Memoir 16
Persuasive Texts 9
Lessons from the 5

Teacher
Realistic Fiction 3
Comic/Graphic 2
Novel
Informational How- 1
To
Opera Lyrics 1
Other Content 1
Areas (Math)
Total 95
When asked why he selected his portfolio pieces one student, Seymore,
commented, “I just wanted to show everyone all the things I did as a writer. I did a lot of
different stuff.” For Seymore, the digital portfolio gave him an opportunity to show his
diversity as a writer—to allow the reader to see his divergent thinking and his ability to
adapt to changing writing terrains.
Another student, Audriana, was asked the same question and replied, “I’m really
proud of my writing and I was excited to show everything I’ve learned as a writer. I
18
think I’m getting better at it every day. This portfolio shows that.” Audriana’s portfolio
selections allowed her to display her learning and to show her progression over time.
When other children were asked the same question, the answers varied from
student to student. Some wanted to display published pieces because they represented,
“my best work.” Others showed comics they composed because they “showed that I’m
funny and I can make others laugh.” Still others made selections based on what they
could teach peers. Serafina commented, “I just want my friends to learn something from
me.” With the digital portfolios, as opposed to the paper-based portfolios they created
the year before, audience seemed to drive portfolio selection decisions. Their work
would become more public than ever; as such, they constructed their digital portfolios
with a clear audience in mind.
Theme 2: Portfolio Processes—Reflect
After students gathered to collect and select their portfolio pieces, Diana taught a
lesson about reflection—the next phase of the portfolio process. Diana urged students
that it was not enough for writers to just pick written pieces and upload them to a wiki
page. They had to reflect on why they picked their particular pieces. They used agency to
explain their decisions while informing their audience.
An analysis of the reflective statements written by the students revealed multiple
purposes for selecting particular pieces. Several students selected pieces because they
revealed their knowledge of a particular genre. Christopher (Figure 2) chose a published
poem to upload to his wiki page. In his reflection, Christopher noted the power of poetry
as something that allows the writer and reader to have “an almost spiritual connection
with the soul.” Students, through reflections, were able to provide commentaries about
19
the genres they wrote within and the important reasons why writers might select specific
genres to convey their thoughts.
________________
________________
Figure 2. Christopher’s reflection on his choice of poetry.
Other students chose pieces for their portfolios because their self-selected topics
reveal something about them as people. For example, Jeremy uploads a selection about
his trip to New York City (Figure 3). He writes, “I picked this piece because it shows
what I did during my summer of N.Y and I think its [sic] cool that I went to N.Y.” When
portfolios go public, and a classroom of peers will read the writer’s work, students may
want to make revelations about themselves so their peers may learn more about them.
________________
________________
Figure 3. Jeremy’s reflection reveals a life experience.
A common reason for portfolio selection choices was the writer’s desire to show a
writing skill they learned and how they applied that skill within their writing. Emma
(Figure 4) chooses a non-fiction draft from her daybook. In her reflection, she describes
her revision of this piece. A skill she has learned as a writer is to revise while it is fresh
20
on her mind. This is a tip peer writers might benefit from when reading through Emma’s
portfolio.
________________
________________
Figure 4. Emma’s reflection on a writing skill.
When writers reflect on their portfolio selections, they justify their portfolio
decisions. They describe their selections, reveal their reasoning for choosing these
selections, and offer thoughts about what other writers might learn from their writing.
When students wrote paper-based portfolios in fourth grade, the only audience was the
teacher. In fifth grade, audience expanded and so did their reflections. Students now
began to consider their peers when they wrote their reflections. They began to use their
digital portfolios to inform peer writers who would read their work on this wiki and offer
comments—the focus of the third theme.
Theme 3: Portfolio Processes—Project and Connect
First, students collected and selected portfolio pieces. Next, they reflected on
their choices. The first three endeavors were individualistic ones that revealed the inner
thinking of the writer. The next phases of the process—projection and connection—
moved the writer away from their individual thinking and encouraged the writers to
consider the broader audience who might read their work. When portfolio writers
project, they find a way to display their writing for readers. When they connect, they
21
make notations about what they learned from others through the comment feature of their
digital wikis.
Because this was the first time Diana asked students to make comments on peer
digital portfolio pages, she did not anticipate the types of responses students would make.
During her initial analysis of the students’ comments, she grew distressed by the types of
comments students made. She noticed that students were using text-like language and
offered perfunctory comments like, ‘What’s up?’ or ‘How’s it going?’ Several students
wrote song lyrics or funny comments unrelated to the writing. This prompted Diana to
teach a lesson about appropriate comments—an important part of the projection and
connection processes of the writer.
Project. As fourth graders, students constructed portfolios using three-pronged
folders and inserts. They photocopied pieces of writing and added them to their folder.
When completed, they turned them into Diana. She read them, asked students questions
pertaining to the portfolio, and used them to initiate discussion for parent conferences.
The folders were then sent home with the student. Portfolios were constructed within a
paper-based space and the paper-based projection of the portfolios limited the number of
people who viewed it.
The digital portfolios added a new dimension for the writer. In fifth grade, the
projection of the portfolios entered a digital space. Whereas in fourth grade 2-3 other
people viewed the paper-based portfolio, in fifth grade, with the introduction of a digital
media, at least 25 people would view the writer’s work, adding nuance and complexity to
writers’ decisions.
22
When interviewed about the shift from paper-based portfolios to digital portfolios,
students offered differing opinions:
Alley noted, “I liked the digital one better. More people saw my writing. And I
liked making comments on my friend’s writings.”
Chaz added, “I liked digital better. I love computers. I’m kind of like a computer
whiz. Any time we can use computers in the classroom, I feel much happier.”
Other students disagreed, preferring the paper-based portfolio model better.
Cindy explained, “I thought it was hard. I’m not good on computers. I thought it
was hard to add things to it. I really needed someone to help me. Once someone showed
me, I felt better about it.”
Samantha concurred, “I thought the digital portfolio was harder. It was just easier
to put paper in a sleeve and just put it in the folder. Here I had to take pictures, figure out
how to upload them, and type reflections. I’m not a good typer. I thought it was hard.”
The projection portion of the students’ writing process changed from fourth grade
to fifth grade. In fourth grade, students projected their portfolios using folders. Limited
audiences saw their work. In fifth grade, portfolios were projected digitally. For some
students, this was a welcome change. They wanted to use newer technology and they
like the expanded audiences. Other students felt anxious using the digital space. The
digital medium was unexplored territory and it required adjustments. They now had to
do unfamiliar things as writers—and they had to adjust to the new writing terrain.
Connect. The connection component of the portfolio process represented the
biggest change for the writers as they shifted from a paper-based system in fourth grade
to a digital-based system in fifth grade. When their work became digital, and their pages
23
became public, students were able to go onto their peers’ wikis and make connections
through comments. Through the commenting feature, students offered suggestions to
their peers, asked questions, gave compliments, and made personal connections. In this
regard, the connection portion of the process presented students with the greatest shift in
their portfolio experience.
The following snippet from Chaz’s portfolio page shows the types of comments
students made on the wiki pages of their peers (Figure 5). Students make several
comments including: 1) compliments (e.g. “very, very well done, bravo!”) 2) specific
feedback about a writing skill (e.g. “I like your description.”) 3) suggestions (e.g. “You
might want to tell more about what you learned as a writer.”) 4) interest in topic (e.g.
“The mud pit of doom sounds interesting and funny.”) 5) evaluative statements (e.g.
“This reflection shows that you are smart.”)
________________
________________
Figure 5. Peer comments on a portfolio page.
Chaz’s portfolio wiki page is representative of the portfolio pages of his peers.
These varied peer comments affected the writers. The writers realized that an audience
read their work. It made them consider future pieces of writing they would include on
their portfolio.
Emma explains, “I didn’t really think about who was going to read this at first.
Now I do. I want my friends to learn from me. And, I guess I want to learn something
24
from them.” Digital portfolios offer a portal for connection. The comments from peers
become part of the portfolio process—something that never happened when Diana’s
portfolios were paper-based. Digital portfolios added new dimensions to the writer’s
self-evaluation process.
Implications
As the digital world continues to evolve, there is a continuing need to expand our
knowledge about how students use technology as writers to create, communicate, and
collaborate. In the self-evaluative loop that framed this research on digital portfolios,
writers found voice in their own writing and offered their voices to other writers. The
digital space made this important work possible.
The digital portfolio wiki offered a space where students could create individual
pages for specific documents, linking their reflections as well as colleagues’ comments
directly to the individual portfolio selections. The latter facets were critical within this
environment as, unlike traditional portfolios where students rarely have opportunities to
communicate with wider audiences (Merchant, 2005), the digital environment allowed
writers to publish information to a larger and more public audience, obtain feedback, and
collaborate with others regardless of time and context. This socially-situated process
engaged the class within a participatory approach to learning that has been associated
with improved understandings of the learning process and outcomes for students (see
Davidson & Goldberg, 2009; Gee, 2008). Meaning was negotiated through social
interactions and involved co-constructed meaning through shared ideas. This construction
of thinking and knowing through social interaction demonstrated the value of shared
understanding through collaboration with others.

25
Previous research (see Graham and Harris, 2007) has shown that when students
are presented with opportunities to engage in writing for authentic purposes, e.g.
interaction and collaboration, there is an increased likelihood that they will engage in
reflection. Within this research, when the shift was made from the use of traditional
portfolios to digital portfolios, the presence of an authentic audience also shifted the
process of reflection from an internal, individualized one to a more externally-focused,
metacognitive one. Students had to think about their work within the selection and
projection process as they were engaged with writing for a specified, authentic goal
(Bransford, et al., 2000). The audience became a specific focal point within the selection
process, as identified by the reflections associated with selections. Prior to the
implementation of the digital portfolios, reflection was limited beyond noting the
selection of individual pieces as representing students “best work”, e.g. more skill-driven.
The reflections also revealed students utilized the opportunity to reach wider audience as
a mechanism to teach other students about themselves as well as the writing process
itself.
Several implications for continued research relative to student outcomes
associated with the digital environment are noted. With the expanded student awareness
of audience, it is important to examine correlations between level of participation and
growth/writing outcomes, e.g. quality of writing (see Corden, 2007). For example, as
students continue to write for authentic audiences, how does the information they have
about the audience influence their writing and, relatedly, how does the feedback received
from the audience help them refine their writing? Similarly, examinations of students’
perceptions of themselves as writers as well as their motivation to write will inform us

26
how implementation of authentic writing experiences in a digital environment impacts
affective constructs.
This research also reinforced there is still much to learn about methods for
teachers to use digital writing to support communication and collaboration (see Zammit
& Downes, 2002). Notably, flexibility represented an important facet within the process.
In several instances, Diana had to teach new skills that were not applicable within
traditional writing portfolios. For example, the students’ ability to offer suggestions, ask
questions, and make connections was initially limited. The students were engaging in
social practices, yet in a non-constructive manner. As a result, Diana had to specifically
teach the students how to critically examine writing to facilitate connections between
their own understandings and knowledge and to, subsequently, write effective comments.
This reinforces previous research that teachers wishing to implement portfolios within
this context must direct attention towards the development of skills considering the
audience for the writing (Holliway & McCutchen, 2004). In this regard, we suggest
additional research specifically focusing on the teacher and the teaching processes used to
develop skills for participation as well as reflection to help enhance the related benefits of
the digital environment and authentic audience.
It was revealed that not all students may feel (or be) proficient with the
technology used for the portfolios, including typing skills. Teachers will need to direct
attention toward technology skills to ensure students possess or can be taught necessary
skills to create and collect their digital pieces as well as comment on others’ work. With
the proliferation of tools on the Internet that allow users to upload and create content, it is
important research is directed towards the most effective methods in helping students
27
develop these proficiencies (see Common Core State Standards Initiative, 2010) to ensure
they can participate in a global society and increasingly interconnected network.
Conclusion
The meaning and description of what it means to be literate has certainly evolved
due to the rapidly changing nature of the technology used both within and outside of our
educational contexts. Regardless, we must still consider how to provide students with
“the space and support to communicate critically, aesthetically, lovingly, and agentively”
(Hull, 2003, p.230). Digital portfolios may represent one mechanism that provides the
space, while simultaneously preparing our students in the ever-evolving skills necessary
to write and communicate in the 21st Century.

28
References
Abrami, P. C., & Barrett, H. C. (2005, Fall). Directions for research and development on
electronic portfolio. Canadian Journal of Learning and Technology, 31(3).
Retrieved from http://cjlt.csj.ualberta.ca/index.php/cjlt/article/view/92/86
Bakhtin, M. M. (1981). The dialogic imagination: Four essays. Austin TX: University of
Texas.
Barrett. H. C. (2007). Researching electronic portfolios and learner engagement: The
REFLECT Initiative. Journal of Adolescent & Adult Literacy, 50, 436-449. doi:
10.1598/JAAL.50.6.2
Bransford, J., Brown, A., & Cocking, R. (2000). How people learn: Brain, mind,
experience, and school. Washington, D.C.: National Academy Press.
Brown, J. O. (2002). Know thyself: The impact of portfolio development on adult
learning. Adult Education Quarterly, 52, 228-245.
doi:10.1177/0741713602052003005
Common Core State Standards Initiative. (2010). Common Core State Standards:
Preparing America’s students for college and career. Retrieved August 30, 2012
from http://www.corestandards.org/
Corden, R. (2007). Developing reading and writing connections: The impact of explicit
instruction of literary devices on the quality of children’s narrative writing.
Journal of Research in Childhood Education, 21(3), 269–289.
doi:10.1080/02568540709594594
Crafton, L. K., Brennan, M., & Silvers, P. (2007). Critical inquiry and multiliteracies in a
first-grade classroom. Language Arts, 84, 510-518.

29
Davidson, C. N., & Goldberg, D. T. (2009). The future of learning institutions in a
digital age. Cambridge, Mass: MIT Press.
Denton, D. (2012). Improving the quality of evidence-based writing entries in electronic
portfolios. International Journal of ePortfolio, 2, 187-197. Retrieved from:
http://www.theijep.com/pdf/IJEP76.pdf
Dilthey, W. (1977). Descriptive psychology and historical understanding (R. M. Zaner &
K. L. Heiges, Trans.). The Hague, The Netherlands: Nijhoff. (Original work
published 1911)
Dyson, A., & Genishi, C. (2005). On the case: Approaches to language and literacy
research. New York, NY: Teachers College Press.
Erickson, F. (1986). Qualitative methods in research on teaching. In M. Wittrock (Ed.),
Handbook of research on teaching (3rd ed., pp. 119–161). New York, NY:
Macmillan.
Fletcher, R., & Portalupi, J. (2000). Writing workshop: The essential guide. Portsmouth,
NH: Heinemann.
Gee, J. P. (2008). Social linguistics and literacies: Ideology in discourses (3rd ed.). New
York: Taylor and Francis.
Geertz, C. (1973). The interpretation of cultures. New York, NY: Basic Books.
Glaser, B., & Strauss, A. (1967). The discovery of grounded theory: Strategies for
qualitative research. Chicago, IL: Aldine.
Griffin, M. (2003) Using critical incidents to promote and assess reflective thinking in
preservice teachers. Reflective Practice, 4, 207-220.
doi:10.1080/14623940308274
30
Goldberg, A., Russell, M., & Cook, A. (2003). The effect of computers on student
writing: A meta-analysis of studies from 1992-2002. Journal of Technology,
Learning and Assessment, 2, 1-24. Retrieved from
http://ejournals.bc.edu/ojs/index.php/jtla/article/view/1661/1503
Graham, S., & Harris, K.R. (2007). Best practices in teaching planning. In C.A.
MacArthur, S. Graham, & J. Fitzgerald (Eds.), Best practices in writing
instruction (pp. 119–140). New York: Guilford.
Hansen, J. (1998). When learners evaluate. Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann.
Hansen, J. & Kissel, B. (2010). K-12 students as writers: Research to practice. D. Lapp &
D. Fisher (Eds.), The handbook of research on teaching the English language arts
(3rd ed., pp. 271-277). New York: Routledge.
Heath, M. (2005). Are you ready to go digital? The pros and cons of electronic portfolio
development. Library Media Connection, 23, 66-70.
Holliway, D. R., & McCutchen, D. (2004). Audience perspective in young writers’
composing and revising. In L. Allal, L. Chanquoy, & P. Largy (Eds.), Revision:
Cognitive and instructional processes (pp. 87–101). Norwell, MA: Kluwer.
Hull, G.A., & Nelson, M. (2005). Locating the semiotic power of multimodality. Written
Communication, 22(2), 224–261. doi:10.1177/0741088304274170
International Reading Association. (2009). New literacies and 21st century technologies:
A position statement of the International Reading Association. Newark, DE:
Author.
Klenowski, V., Askew, S. & Carnell, E. (2006). Portfolios for learning, assessment and
31
professional development in higher education. Assessment & Evaluation in
Higher Education, 31, 267–286. doi:10.1080/02602930500352816
Lankshear, C., & Knobel, M. (2003). New Literacies: Changing Knowledge and
Classroom Learning. Buckingham: Open University Press.
Merchant, G. (2005). Electronic involvement: Identify performance in children’s
informal digital writing. Discourse: Studies in the Cultural Politics of Education,
26, 301-314. doi: 10.1080/01596300500199940.
Merriam, S. (1998). Qualitative research and case study applications in education. San
Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Miles, M., & Huberman, A. (1994). Qualitative data analysis: An expanded sourcebook.
Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Murray, D. (1968). A writer teaches writing: A practical method of teaching composition.
Boston: Houghton Mifflin.
National Council of Teachers of English. (2007). 21st-Century literacies: A policy
research brief produced by the National Council of Teachers of English. Urbana,
Illinois: Author. Retrieved from
http://www.ncte.org/library/NCTEfiles/Resources/Magazine/Chron110721CentLi
tBrief.pdf
Niguidula, D. (2005). Documenting learning with digital portfolios. Educational
Leadership, 63, 44-47.
O’Reilly, T. (2005). What is web 2.0? Retrieved from
http://oreilly.com/web2/archive/what-is-web-20.html.
Risko, V. J., Roller, C. M., Cummins, C., Bean, R. M., Block, C. C., Anders, P. L. et al.
32
(2008). A critical analysis of research on reading teacher education. Reading
Research Quarterly, 43, 252-288. doi: 10.1598/RRQ.43.3.3
Scribner, S., & Cole, M. (1981). The psychology of literacy. Cambridge, MA: Harvard
University Press.
Smith, K., & Tillema, H. (2003). Clarifying different types of portfolio use. Assessment
& Evaluation in Higher Education, 28, 625-648.
doi:10.1080/0260293032000130252
Stefani, L., Mason, R. & Pegler, C. (2007). The educational potential of e-portfolios:
Supporting personal development and reflective learning. London: Routledge.
Taylor, D. B. (2012). Multiliteracies: Moving from theory to practice in teacher
education. In A. B. Polly, Mims, C., & K. Persichitte (Eds.). Creating
Technology-Rich Teacher Education Programs: Key Issues (pp. 266-287).
Hershey, PA: IGI Global.
United States Department of Education (2010). Transforming American education:
Learning Powered by Technology. Washington, D.C.: Author. Retrieved from
http://www.ed.gov/sites/default/files/netp2010.pdf
Vasudevan, L., Schultz, K., & Bateman, J. (2010). Rethinking composing in a digital age:
Authoring literate identities through multimodal storytelling. Written
Communication, 27, 442–468. doi:10.1177/0741088310378217
Vygotsky, L.V. (1978). Mind in society. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Wade, A., Abrami, P. C., & Sclater, J. (2005, Fall). An electronic portfolio to support
learning. Canadian Journal of Learning and Technology, 31(3), Retrieved from
http://cjlt.csj.ualberta.ca/index.php/cjlt/article/view/94/88
33
Wall, K., Higgins, S., Miller, J., & Packard, N. (2006). Developing digital portfolios:
Investigating how digital portfolios can facilitate pupil talk about learning.
Technology, Pedagogy and Education, 15, 261-273.
doi:10.1080/14759390600923535
Wetzel, K., & Strudler, N. (2005). The diffusion of electronic portfolios in teacher
education: Next steps and recommendations from accomplished users. Journal of
Research on Technology in Education, 38, 231-243.
Wollman-Bonilla, J.E. (2003). E-mail as Genre: A Beginning Writer Learns the
Conventions. Language Arts, 81,126–34.
Yancey, K. (2009). Writing in the 21st Century: A Report from the National Council of
Teachers of English. Urbana, IL: National Council of Teachers of English.
Retrieved from http://www.ncte.org/library/NCTEFiles/Press/Yancey_final.pdf
Zammit, K., & Downes, T. (2002). New learning environments and the multiliterate
individual: A framework for educators. Australian Journal of Language and
Literacy, 25(2), 24-36.
Zubizarreta, J. (2004). The learning portfolio: Reflective practice for improving student
learning. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Chapter - Digital

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Chapter - Digital

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

1

DIGITAL PORTFOLIOS AND COMMUNICATION

Running Head: DIGITAL PORTFOLIOS AND COMMUNICATION

technologies to help them become knowledgeable participants in an era of global

information sharing (International Reading Association, 2009). Acknowledging this, the

pencil-paper types of writing. A qualitative approach was utilized to examine student

communicate, express their ideas, share their understandings, and collaboratively

construct meaning with an authentic audience. Correspondingly, it also demonstrated the

the unique opportunities presented by the digital environment.

In 2003, the National Commission on Writing in America’s Schools and Colleges

engage with ever-emerging tools to write in communicative, collaborative, and

exploratory ways (Taylor, 2012).

gone unnoticed by educational stakeholders. The National Council for Teachers of

technology into their classrooms so students have opportunities to engage in

of communication and collaboration while moving from paper-based portfolios to digital

another about their learning.

provides an understanding of the individual as continually learning in a context with

solve within the context of instruction.

Vygotsky (1978) theorized that knowledge is constructed through social

students. Construction of thinking and knowing through social interaction demonstrates

researchers emphasize the notion that learning is socially situated.

Writing in the Digital Age

There is little doubt that literacy is undergoing fundamental changes due to

supporting traditional forms of literacy--including writing. We live in a world that is

‘‘changing ways of producing, distributing, exchanging and receiving texts by electronic

communication, contribution, and collaboration, creating a social space for people to

outside of the classroom is greatly enhanced.

Digital writing and the associated products of students in elementary grades is an

writing that was lengthier and of higher quality.

Additional studies (e.g. Crafton, Brennan, & Silvers, 2007; Wollman-Bonilla,

strengthened the importance of creating a community of learners within a shared space

and Harris, 2007).

Reflection is an important component within writing for a variety of reasons.

to practice reflection as well as specifically teaching the skills associated with it as

Using Portfolios within Writing Instruction

Writing portfolios represent a traditional method of collecting samples of written

(Denton, 2012). Writing portfolios have resulted in an improved awareness of the

learning process as well as learning outcomes through the creation of portfolios

(Niguidula, 2005). Portfolios have also enhanced students’ communication and

organizational skills (Brown, 2002).

Portfolios represent an important tool to support active reflection by students.

within the process (Stiggins, 2007; Zubizarreta, 2004).

Zubizarreta (2004) described a model for portfolios that emphasized the

interaction of three elements: reflection, evidence, and collaboration. According to his

components are activated; yet, a combination of all three elements facilitates

opportunities for greater engagement and, potentially, enhanced learning. However,

adult education (Barrett, 2007).

Emergence of Digital Portfolios in Education

(2005), an electronic portfolio is “a digital container capable of storing visual and

(United States Department of Education, 2010, p.12).

 facilitate the use of different formats, including writing that integrates

text, hyptertext, and multimedia elements (Abrami & Barrett, 2005;

Heath, 2005; Wade, Abrami, & Sclater, 2005);

Barrett, 2005; Wall, Higgins, Miller, & Packard, 2006); and

 distribute writing to a much broader, more authentic audience (Wade et

enhanced (Abrami & Barrett, 2005), potentially creating a community of practice

theories are manifest in practices as feedback and discourse allows students to

others’ growth (e.g., Bakhtin, 1981; Vygotsky, 1978).

Perhaps the most significant shortcoming associated with digital portfolios in K-

12 contexts is a general lack of research in this area. As technologies continue to emerge,

portfolios as a means to support children’s writing development offers an opportunity to

employed an interpretivistic, ethnographic approach to study the culture of one classroom

systematically studied to acknowledge emerging patterns and themes.