A Comparative Analysis of Common E-Portfolio Features and Available Platforms

Abstract

Assessment of student learning outcomes plays an important role in educational effectiveness, improvement, and sustainability that is increasingly being recognized and required by accrediting bodies (Buzzetto-More, 2006; Haken, 2006). A form of performance-based assessment that is growing in popularity and is heralded for its purposeful, dynamic, and integrated nature is the portfolio (Cooper, 1999; ePort, 2003; Paulson, Paulson, & Meyer, 1991). Electronic portfolios encourage students to engage in self reflection by providing a broad range of means for expressing the total learning experience as linked to standards and learning outcomes (AAHE, 2001; Barett, 2004; ePort, 2003; Martell & Calderon, 2005; Popper, 2005). They are an effective form of assessment that encourages students and educators to examine skills that may not be otherwise accessed using traditional means such as higher order thinking, communications, and collaborative abilities (Buzzetto-More, 2006; Wright, 2004). Electronic portfolios can be created using tools ranging from off-the-shelf generic software applications to widely available systems. This paper will focus on the latter by investigating the eight most widely available systems and by providing a detailed examination of their platform features. A matrix has been provided that offers a side-by-side comparison of the platforms by a variety of features that include: learning outcomes, rubrics, storage, support, assessments, surveys, advisement, communication, collaboration, data collection/reporting, intended user, supporting file types, pricing structure, and accessibility.

Cite this work

No public copy is stored for this record, so only the metadata is cited.

Stored only when both papers are in the corpus — 46 citations exist upstream.

Papers that cite the same references — the relational fallback while embeddings are still backfilling.