Content uploaded by Maarten Van Wesel
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Maarten Van Wesel
Content may be subject to copyright.
ISSN 1479-4403 21 ©Academic Conferences Ltd
Reference this paper as:
Luchoomun, D, McLuckie, J, and van Wesel, M.(2010) “Collaborative e-Learning: e-Portfolios for
Assessment, Teaching and Learning” Electronic Journal of e-Learning Volume 8 Issue 1 2009, (pp21 - 30),
available online at www.ejel.org
Collaborative e-Learning: e-Portfolios for Assessment,
Teaching and Learning
Dharmadeo Luchoomun
1
Joe McLuckie
1
, and Maarten van Wesel
2
1
University of Dundee, UK
2
Universiteit Maastricht, The Netherlands
d.z.luchoomun@dundee.ac.uk
Abstract: This paper presents an innovative approach to e-learning by exploring a number of initiatives where
there is a move towards collaborative use of Personal Development Plans (PDPs) integrated with e-portfolios as
mechanisms for delivering such plans. It considers whether such a move towards more product orientated
assessment might enhance student learning experiences. Outcome based assessment and the use of e-
portfolios also implies that a course may be delivered in a blended learning format and whether this change of
culture in the higher education sector has an impact on tutors’ course delivery and students’ learning. The
transition towards collaborative use of e-portfolios is presented in this paper. It addresses specifically the
development of the Virtual Learning Environment (VLE) and the use of e-portfolios and how collaborative e-
learning is achieved at the School of Education, Social Work and Community Education (SESWCE) of the
University of Dundee (UoD). This transition is eventually assessed by listening to students. Their views have
supported the e-learning experience achieved at SESWCE. Opportunities have been generated for collaborative
e-learning and it has allowed UoD to work towards the national targets in this particular field.
Keywords: e-Portfolio, Virtual Learning Environment (VLE), online assessment, blended learning, collaborative
learning, learning objects
1. Background
A growing number of universities and education authorities within United Kingdom (UK) as well as
worldwide, are in the process of implementing the enhanced use of e-portfolios in Personal
Development Plans (PDPs) as the main means of students’ learning and assessment. This, in turn,
would cause a reduction in the number of courses utilising formal lecture and written examinations.
The emphasis on e-portfolios during the process of PDP development is particularly informed by peer
assisted collaborative learning and assessment using the Virtual Learning Environment (VLE). One of
the major components of the VLE at University of Dundee (UoD) and elsewhere is the growing
importance and utilisation of e-portfolios because it offers the potential to promote collaborative
learning and other forms of learning.
Collaborative learning and peer assessment has undergone significant development for the past
decade. Researchers and practitioners, for example Thorpe (1998) and Phillips, Parsons, Duranton et
al. (2004) suggested the use of Computer Mediated Communication (CMC) and computer-based
activities in continuous assessment as a means to promote collaborative learning. It was highlighted
that ‘effective opportunities can be created to enhance feedback on learning and develop skills of
group work and using information technology which have not before been possible’ (Thorpe, 1998, pp
284). Acknowledging the transition from paper-based assessment to the use of VLEs and e-portfolios
as a means for more collaborative learning, Eccestone (1999) raised concerns about the impact of
critical reflection. For example, researchers and practitioners were cautioned against over-optimism in
the use of PDPs and e-portfolios because of the tendency to gather a number of artefacts without
reflecting on their significance.
However, the discussion as well as the discourse around the implementation of PDPs and e-portfolios
was an ongoing process across universities in different countries. For example, the University of
Georgia (UG) was making extensive use of e-portfolios in the International Technology Masters
programmes. Students from the university were encouraged to present publicly a comprehensive e-
portfolio of their design work as the culminating assessment in their programme (Department of
Instructional Technology, 1999). Eventually, students annotated their e-portfolios via electronic
journals or reflections. In a similar vein, Reeves (2000) forwarded the use of e-portfolios as a
mechanism for formative assessment that allows tutors to pass comments on tutees’ work before final
submission of projects or theses. It was also suggested that tutors would use this route to encourage
Electronic Journal of e-Learning Volume 8 Issue 1 2010, (21 - 30)
critical reflection among students about the artefacts they were collecting. These artefacts
represented evidence of learning, practice and understanding of specific areas of a particular course.
The evidence could take the form of files such as word document, power points and that would link to
resources.
A major study from Netherlands, for example, identifies three goals for competency assessment with
e-portfolios. These goals are selection, diagnosis and certification (Tartwijk, Driesen, Hoeberings et
al., 2003). At the selection process, the suitability of a student for a study programme is assessed and
the assessment outcomes are carried forward during the admission procedure. The diagnosis stage is
used to determine and monitor the progress of the student’s needs through their e-portfolios. By the
end of the study programme, the certification process that is based on the study requirements
determines attainment level of each student.
Within the United Kingdom (UK), countrywide consultancy exercise undertaken by Quality Assurance
Agency (QAA) for higher education emphasises the importance of developing a PDP system (Quality
Assurance Agency, 2001, Quality Assurance Agency, 2008). As a number of universities are already
investigating the implementation of PDP systems, the QAA has targeted a five year programme
starting in 2005 for universities. It is projected that a majority of universities will have students
graduating with a first degree and utilising e-portfolios-enhanced PDPs until 2010.
This move towards PDPs is not unique to the higher education sector. Under the Assessment is for
Learning Initiative (ALI) for Scottish schools, research has been undertaken to find out if it is feasible
to introduce Personal Learning Plans (PLPs) in Scottish primary and secondary schools (Robertson
and Dakers, 2004). This report suggested that a skills-based model of PLPs would provide inherent
articulation with curriculum-based outcomes that make sense to teachers and pupils in respect of their
daily experiences in schools. It is argued that if a skills-based approach for PLPs is adopted,
intermediary levels and mapping learning outcomes against skills would be required. This would
eventually ‘enable teachers to integrate learning goals with both short and mid-term planning’
(Robertson and Dakers, 2004, pp 43).
2. PDP and e-portfolio development: policy implementation and practice
The policy context from different universities within the UK and outside the country, for example, the
Netherlands in particular was explored. Sources of strong evidence from one individual research, the
Evidence for Policy and Practice Information and Co-ordinating Centre (EPPI-Centre), two UK
universities and one Dutch university are interrogated and the application of e-portfolios in PDPs are
presented in Table 1. Barrett (2000) , for example, suggestes five key stages in the production of
PDPs where artefacts are, at a first instance, collected as pieces of evidence from day-to-day
teaching and learning.
Table 1: The different ways how the e-portfolio can be implemented
Source
of study
Key functions of e-portfolio
Individual Research
(Barrett, 2000)
Collection; Selection; Reflection; Direction; and Presentation
EPPI
(Gough, Kiwan, Sutcliffe et al., 2003)
Planning; Doing; Recording; Reviewing; and Evaluating
Lancaster University
(Lancaster University, 2008)
Record; Review ; Plan; Complete record of work; Demonstrate
skills; Insight into ways of learning; Confidence; Self awareness
and identity, and Of use for CVs etc after graduation
Liverpool University
(The Centre for Lifelong Learning, 2008)
Planning; Sharing Evidence; Monitoring; Review of Evidence;
Review of Literature; Statement of Outcomes; and Target
Windesheim University
(Wijnand, 2004)
Registration; Representation; and Personal Record of Progress;
Planning; and Reflection
Then, through a selection process, these artefacts are reviewed and evaluated; an exercise that
allows students to reflect upon. This reflection exercise precedes the setting of future learning goals. It
was highlighted that this stage paves the direction for the transformation of e-portfolios for
professional development and supports lifelong learning.
What is not clear in Barrett’s five stages is the organisational aspects of e-portfolio utilisation. This
gap has been eventually filled by key findings from the study undertaken by EPPI (Gough, Kiwan,
www.ejel.org 22 ©Academic Conferences Ltd
Luchoomun, D et al.
Sutcliffe et al., 2003). As presented in Table 1, the study highlighted the importance of planning,
doing, recording, reviewing and evaluating the constituents of the e-portfolio. In the context of practice
being informed by both policy and research, a few examples of PDP implementation from other
universities are interrogated.
As shown in Table 1, Liverpool University has established a generic set of assessment criteria for
their Master Course in Education (The Centre for Lifelong Learning, 2008). Likewise, Lancaster
University has developed an innovative, multifunctional and versatile VLE called ‘MyPlace’ for student
to create, develop and refine their e-portfolios within PDPs (Lancaster University, 2008). The aim is to
overcome the difficulty in deciding what it is to be assessed by using PDPs and at the same time
maintaining academic standards. From the Netherland’s perspective of e-portfolio utilisation,
Windesheim University, for example, takes a more holistic approach. Apart from presenting, recording
and planning their work and then reflecting upon, students enter their university’s registration details
into their e-portfolios.
3. PDP and e-portfolio development at University of Dundee (UoD)
Working in line within the national policy guidelines set by the QAA for higher education (Quality
Assurance Agency, 2001) and recent developments at national level (Quality Assurance Agency,
2008), major developments of the VLE have been undertaken at UoD. The VLE at UoD that has been
named as ‘MyDundee, is made up of two servers (University of Dundee, 2008). They are the Online-
course Delivery Server (ODS) and Content Management Server (CMS). The latter is a depository for
resources that are fed by tutors and students and the e-portfolio is a subset of the CMS. More
specifically, the e-portfolio is used to store personal information, present personal competence matrix,
learning plans and evidence of progress, achievement and reflection. It contains artefacts as evidence
of learning and practice and attainment of standards. The evidence can be in the form of word and
power point files as well as links to other resources.
To operationalise the use of e-portfolios, specific guidance is issued to students about what is
expected. A representative user-interface for individual student is displayed as Figure 1 below. In
addition, the student has the option and opportunity to personalise the user-interface. The menu items
that appear on the user-interface and that need to be addressed in the final submission are as
follows:
Introduction
My Profile
My Educational Philosophy
Standards for Initial Teacher Education (SITE) Audit - Record of Achievement
Critical Reflection
My Priorities
Bibliography
As shown in Figure 1, these are hypermedia links that open in separate pages and allow students to
either write directly on the page and/or attach other files.
Although such a menu is pedagogically focused by design, those features which are common to the
outcomes are listed above.
By completing ‘My Profile’ and ‘My Educational Philosophy’ students become more aware of their own
value-base and their own sense of identity. The ‘Standard for Initial Teacher Education Audit (SITE)’
that links to ‘Audit of attainment’ option contains links to artefacts demonstrating achievement (The
General Teaching Council for Scotland, 2006). The ‘Critical Reflection’ demonstrates higher order
thinking skills in the process of reviewing or evaluating the evidence students have gathered. ‘My
Priorities’ that is at times known as ‘Development Targets’ indicate the professional skills that
www.ejel org 23 ISSN 1479-4403
Electronic Journal of e-Learning Volume 8 Issue 1 2010, (21 - 30)
students are likely to develop after having graduated and having entered the first year of employment
in their profession.
Figure 1: A sample of the user-interface of a student’s e-portfolio at the University of Dundee
View the growing importance of e-portfolios in assessing students’ grades, especially for their first
degree as targeted by QAA (Quality Assurance Agency, 2008), four major questions are raised. First,
gathering artefacts and students commenting on these artefacts do not guarantee that the students’
submissions will be written in critical reflection mode. Second, what arrangements have been made
by universities to maintain quality and standards and to prevent different forms of plagiarism. View the
ease of availability of e-information, plagiarism is indeed a major concern (Elander, Pittam, Lusher et
al., 2009). Third, how to differentiate between collaborative work and for example, student A simply
does the work of student B. And fourth, as the use of e-portfolio has shifted the traditional
examination, what system has been set up by University of Dundee and other universities to support
lecturers and/or examiners.
As discussed earlier, although the collaborative elements promote reflection and learning,
researchers and practitioners, for example Ecclestone (1999); Phillips et al. (2004); and Hennessy
and Howie (2004) argued the necessity for both students as well as tutors to engage in the process of
reflection. It is only by engaging reflectively that learning and progress would take place. Cottrell
(2003), for example, carried this discussion further by stating that students need to set targets, attain
those targets, keep reflective records and evidence of attainment.
As already stated at start of this sub-section, University of Dundee (UoD) has developed its own
policy statement on the use of e-portfolios in PDPs as well as forging ahead with exploratory
implementations of PDPs, utilising its chosen VLE and CMS. In this context, the School of Education,
Social Work and Community Education (SESWCE), at UoD is piloting a new Post Graduate
Certificate of Education Course for teachers (SESWCE, 2008). A substantial part of the course that
would normally be delivered during school blocks will be dispensed using the university’s VLE,
MyDundee. Table 2 presents the transition from the traditional mode of course delivery to a structure
that uses the VLE. The traditional mode of course delivery and the new course structure are
presented in Table 2.
The new structure of course delivery allows students who are on school placements, for example, to
upload their lesson plans, resources used in these lessons, evaluations of lessons progression and
www.ejel.org 24 ©Academic Conferences Ltd
Luchoomun, D et al.
other such artefacts onto their e-portfolios. During the faculty based and distance learning time, they
work on a number of research projects and assignments, for which they produce both individual and
collaborative reports. As these are also seen as artefacts, they are uploaded onto their e-portfolios.
As each student progresses through the course, the number of such artefacts grows. Eventually, it
becomes the student’s own responsibility to ‘link’ these artefacts into the e-portfolio structure. This
linked e-portfolio then provides evidence of progression, coherence and reflection as the student
progresses towards course completion.
Table 2: The traditional mode of course delivery and the new course structure that uses the VLE at
the School of Education, Social Work and Community Education (SESWCE, 2008)
Traditional Mode of Course delivery New Course Structure
3 six weeks school placement blocks (18 weeks) 3 six weeks school placement blocks
(18 weeks)
18 weeks faculty based
7 weeks faculty based
11 weeks distance learning
Very early feedback from students has indicated that they have sought guidance on the ways to
structure their e-portfolios. None of them, either during their first degree or subsequent modes of
employment, had experienced personal development planning or e-portfolio construction. With this in
mind, it was decided to give them a preset template as their user-interface. This template which has
been presented earlier in Figure 1 is structured to indicate what is required in terms of assessment
but, without discouraging their sense of ownership and personal commitment to the ongoing
construction of their e-portfolios. As the course is accredited nationally by the General Teaching
Council for Scotland (GTCS), students are to provide evidence that they have satisfied the Standards
for Initial Teacher Education (SITE) by the end of course. To assist students in this process, they are
provided with an electronic template of these standards in a tabulated format, in the form of a
columnar display. It is also known as the SITE template for example, as displayed as Figure 2 on next
page. The middle column lists required standards and the right hand column provides students with
space to evidence of attainment of standards. This evidence is reflective in nature and contains
hypermedia links to those files, such as teacher summative report (SE2), school placement reports,
lesson plans, any additional supportive work and the students’ formative report (SE1).
www.ejel org 25 ISSN 1479-4403
Electronic Journal of e-Learning Volume 8 Issue 1 2010, (21 - 30)
Figure 2: The user-interface an e-portfolio where students provide evidence of attaining stated
standards
While students are in the process of completing this SITE template they share it with their peer
learning group. This encourages peer collaborative learning and formative assessment; a process
that is iterative in nature and provides feedback about learning.
As the course concludes, the e-portfolio evolves from a formative assessment instrument to one that
is summative in nature. At this stage, students share their e-portfolios with their tutors who then
cross-reference the e-portfolio with the SITE Audit targets ensuring that students have evidenced
attainment of targets. As well as students satisfying the GTCS’s professional standards for initial
teacher education, e-portfolios are also used to assess the academic quality of the course, as
defined in the assessment criteria of the university’s validated course (SESWCE, 2008).
4. Student perception of PDP and e-portfolio development
4 weeks before the end of the first module, a sample of 26 students was issued an online evaluation
questionnaire to complete. This evaluation was deliberately placed in the distance learning part of the
first module because it also establishes whether students were actively engaged in the processes
associated with the construction of their e-portfolios. The aim of the evaluation questionnaire was to
identify which processes they were comfortable with and which would require additional support
during forthcoming faculty based teaching blocks.
20 out of 26 students responded to the evaluation questionnaire. Those 6 students who did not
respond stated time factor for non-completion. Those students who have responded said that it was
their first experience with this kind of e-portfolios for collecting artefacts. This is justified because
teaching, learning and assessment has been undergoing a transition from the traditional mode of
course delivery to a blended learning format with the support of the university’s VLE. 12 out of 20
students find the use of CMS easy or manageable, for example, they can add artefacts to e-portfolios
and they were excited with their e-portfolios. For example, a student commented that:
‘I am collecting my work in word and have managed to put some of these documents into
my e-portfolio. I still feel rather overwhelmed by this aspect of the course’ (Student).
However, remedial support has been incorporated into the course at the introduction stage to those
who finding it difficult. This can prove to be quite challenging as, immediately after this introduction,
students are operating in a distance learning mode.
Most of them have reported that they understand the differences between the CMS, their content area
on the VLE and their e-portfolios. This indicates that they differentiate between collecting artefacts
and then building them into a cohesive e-portfolio. Those who do not understand require further
remediation. Interestingly, it was found that more than 50% of students were able to successfully link
folders in their content area. They have also linked individual files and other artefacts in their
developing content area. The process of linking to folders, rather than files, is a second level skill and
one that would be required in the final stages of building an e-portfolio. This early usage of linking
artefacts into e-portfolios is encouraging, in that, students have demonstrated technical competences
before moving onto a more reflective stage in using the e-portfolio as evidence of having achieved the
SITE standards. To support this move, the SESWC is engaging further training in skills development
in this particular area.
17 out of 20 students said that they have shared their developing e-portfolios with their peers. But,
only 4 out of 20 have really commented the development of e-portfolios of their peers and even tutors’
comments have been limited. It has been reported that:
‘I've received some feedback from <Name of peer> and it’s been very useful. <Name of
peer> gave feedback via Comments section in the e-portfolio. Good to get a bit of
encouragement and to know someone else can actually access the material. I'm not very
confident about this aspect of the course and tend to save everything in My Documents.
I feel I could do with more tuition centred around the use of the e-portfolio system’
(Student).
Although students have shared their e-portfolios, they have not, on the whole, passed comments to
each other, in relation to the contents of their respective e-portfolios. There are implications here for
the initial set of lecture inputs for future cohort of students. The importance of peer collaborative
www.ejel.org 26 ©Academic Conferences Ltd
Luchoomun, D et al.
learning will have to be stressed at the introductory stage of the course and lecturers, in particular,
have to be more proactive in encouraging students at these early stages. For example, it was
reported that:
‘I have received feedback on items in developing my e-portfolio from my subject tutor and
have also received a little feedback on lesson evaluation summaries from my subject and
generic tutors. Feedback has been via email and has been useful and encouraging’
(Student).
In this particular case, although feedback was emailed to ensure access by the student, the use of
VLE needs to be encouraged. Stressing the importance of peer collaborative learning at the outset of
the course is one of the longer term implications.
The expectation is that as students move from gathering artefacts together, towards reflecting on the
significance of these artefacts, then there would be greater interaction between the students and their
tutors. We anticipate that there would be greater interactions with the students’ peers during the next
stage of the process – a part of the programme that requires greater emphasis.
5. Results and analysis
Rather than simply summarising the implementation of PDPs and e-portfolios as well as how students
perceive the entire process, we conclude by further interrogating the transition towards collaborative
e-learning.
Is it realistic to expect universities to adopt wide scale implementation of personal development?
The findings from the universities considered earlier in this paper indicate that implementing PDPs is
feasible in the Higher Education sector. However, the implementation of PDPs and e-portfolios at the
SESWCE, UoD and associated implications suggest that such usage would require a distinct culture
change, on both the part of students and staff. If students are more familiar with traditional
assessment by examination then moving to a more outcome based assessment model will have to be
introduced with caution. It may be possible to implement such new models in one year post graduate
courses, over a relatively short timescale, but for traditional 3 or 4 year degree programmes it will be
more problematic. If such courses are modularised and each module is assessed separately, then
implementing an outcome based assessment module would need to be considered on an individual
module basis. The staffing implications are also considerable. Not only will staff have to accept the
value of having an outcome based assessment model, but they will also have to spend additional time
customising their existing courses with the new structure of course delivery as shown earlier in Table
2. The implementation of such a strategy will require considerable course re-alignment.
Can such implementations be achieved in an online format?
The emerging e-portfolios systems available, either as sub-systems within VLEs or bespoke systems
in their own right, give scope for considerable optimism. In the case of Newcastle University, Cottrell
(2003) describes how a home-grown e-portfolio system was developed and its successful
application with medical students. In the Netherlands, for instance, the use of such systems has been
incorporated in the study of Nursing, Medicine, and Professional Education (Wijnand, 2004).
Nevertheless, the integration of a bespoke e-portfolio system with other systems, such as existing
VLEs, student record system and management information systems poses certain issues such
compatibility. As stated earlier, Lancaster University has investigated the possibility of using their
bespoke e-portfolio system with their chosen commercial Virtual Learning Environment (VLE). This
investigation has led to the development of a more versatile VLE called ‘MyPlace’ has been
developed (Lancaster University, 2008).
At the University of Dundee (UoD), the chosen strategy is to adopt an e-portfolio system within VLE,
‘MyDundee’. Although this is a more integrated solution, with the first release of VLE’s e-portfolio
components, we have faced and eventually overcome certain technical issues, such as downloading
e-portfolios to compact disc (CD). However, there exist the potential for implementation of PDPs in an
online format. As the technology evolves, whether it is a bespoke solution, on an ‘off the shelf’
package, it would become more robust as it has been the case at UoD.
www.ejel org 27 ISSN 1479-4403
Electronic Journal of e-Learning Volume 8 Issue 1 2010, (21 - 30)
If an online implementation is chosen, what competences will students need to develop, in order to
successfully create and refine such plans?
The choice of online implementation of PDPs and e-portfolios require certain technical competences
amongst both staff and students. What may be more difficult is to change a university’s assessment
culture from one where the tutor is predominantly in control, to that where students take more
responsibility for the development of their own PDPs and e-portfolios. From a change of culture
perspective, we propose that students need to develop skills in the processes of collection, selection,
direction, evaluation and reflection. But, we also suggest tutors to develop their own assessment and
tutoring skills where the onus may be on quality assurance of PDPs, rather than grading of
assignments.
What artefacts or resources are needed to be collected in order to demonstrate achievement of the
goals set in such plans?
We suggest that collection of artefacts or evidence be carried further than just a number of word-
processed assignments, power point presentations, spreadsheets and video files. The SESWCE, for
example, emphasises collection of artefacts, such as lesson plans, school placement reports, tutor
visit reports, feedback on written assignments and reflection on discussions that take place in
appropriate online forums. These artefacts need to be relevant to the course and professional
attainment targets that are in use as part of the course’s assessment criteria.
What effects will such a migration to Personal Development Plans (PDPs) have on the quality of
teaching, learning and assessment?
The findings from this study indicate that most students are at their early stage of using PDPs, e-
portfolios and online peer assisted learning. Interestingly, by the end of the programme it was also
found that the majority of students have managed to complete their e-portfolios to a satisfactory level.
The use of PDPs and e-portfolios is achievable, but to promote quality of teaching, learning and
assessment through enhanced peer learning, we suggest that both students and tutors servicing the
course have to be convinced about the advantages to adopt online peer learning into the course. We
ask for a change in culture and invite further research in this area.
6. Conclusion
Acknowledging that this study engages a group of students at one university, the results are yet
interesting. Rather than generalising our findings, we argue that the move towards PDPs, integrated
with the use of an online delivery system, such as an e-portfolio system would help both students and
tutors. The study at UoD suggests that students can develop greater sense of responsibility in
relation to both the course process and the products, or assessment artefacts that they have to
produce as part of their programme of study. These products and the professional competence they
have mastered in the process of e-portfolio construction integrate their career development as they
leave higher education and embark on their professional career. Hopefully, the professionals
themselves will take cognisance of these PDPs and will endeavour, in some way to link into
individual’s ongoing professional staff development. Although the target to use PDPs and e-portfolios
is set for 2010 by QAA as stated earlier (Quality Assurance Agency, 2008), we acknowledged that
there will be struggle ahead. To ease this struggle, we propose further research into this area to find
effective ways in which the construction of such e-portfolios can be achieved more collaboratively.
Acknowledgement
The authors from University of Dundee would like to thank the EU MINERVA programme funding the
MASTER project, which enabled this research project. This paper reflects only the views of the
authors, and the Commission cannot be held responsible for any use which may be made of the
information it contains.
References
Barrett, H. (2000) Create your own electronic portfolio. Learning & Leading with Technology, 27, 14-21
Cottrell, S. (2003) Managed environments for portfolio-based reflective learning: Integrated support for
evidencing outcomes The newsletter of LTSN January 2003 [online] Accessed 31 January 2007
http://www.ltsn-01.ac.uk/newsletter/01.1_html/environments
Department of Instructional Technology (1999) Portfolio Examination Guidelines for the Master’s Degree
University of Georgia [online] Accessed 14 March 2007 http://it.coe.uga.edu/pdf/portguide.pdf
www.ejel.org 28 ©Academic Conferences Ltd
Luchoomun, D et al.
Ecclestone, K. (1999) Empowering or Ensnaring?: The Implications of Outcome-based Assessment in Higher
Education. Higher Education Quarterly, 53, 29-48
Elander, J., Pittam, G., Lusher, J., Fox, P., & Payne, N. (2009). Evaluation of an intervention to help students
avoid unintentional plagiarism by improving their authorial identity. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher
Education.
Gough, D. A., Kiwan, D., Sutcliffe, K., Simpson, D. & Houghton, N. (2003) A systematic map and synthesis
review of the effectiveness of Personal Development Planning for improving student learning Social Science
Research Unit, EPPICentre [online] Accessed 14 February 2007
http://eppi.ioe.ac.uk/EPPIWebContent/reel/review_groups/EPPI/LTSN/LTSN_June03.pdf
Hennessy, S. & Howie, A. M. 2004 Using e-Portfolios to assess the Reflective Capabilities of Medical Students
P8. ePortfolio 2004 Conference La Rochelle [online] Accessed 31 January 2007 http://www.e-
Portfolios.ac.uk/FDTL4/docs/fdtl4_docs/leedsPaperFinal.rtf
Lancaster University (2008) MyPlace Lancaster University [online] Accessed 14 February 2008
http://www.lancs.ac.uk/celt/celtweb/students_myplace
Phillips, H., Parsons, J., Duranton, H. & Ramos, A. (2004) Using Blackboard to support a portfolio based unit
(Interact Magazine, LTSS) University of Bristol [online] Accessed 12 February 2006
http://www.bristol.ac.uk/ceas/members/associates/phillips.shtml
Quality Assurance Agency (2001) Guidelines for HE Progress Files Quality Assurance Agency for Higher
Education [online] Accessed 14 March 2006
http://www.qaa.ac.uk/academicinfrastructure/progressFiles/guidelines/progfile2001.pdf
Quality Assurance Agency (2008) Policy statement on a progress file for Higher Education Quality Assurance
Agency for Higher Education [online] Accessed 12 February 2008
http://www.qaa.ac.uk/academicinfrastructure/progressfiles/archive/policystatement/default.asp
Reeves, T. C. (2000) Alternative assessment approaches for online learning environments in higher education.
Higher Education Journal of Educational Computing Research 23, 101-111
Robertson, P. & Dakers, J. (2004) Personal Learning Plan: Programme 2002-2004, Evaluation Report Education
Department (SEED), Scottish Executive
[online] Accessed 14 February 2007 http://www.scotland.gov.uk/Resource/Doc/25725/0023715.pdf
SESWCE. (2008). Master of Education (Report). Dundee: School of Education, Social Work and Community
Education (SESWCE), University of Dundee.
Tartwijk, J. v., Driesen, E., Hoeberings, B., Kösters, J., Ritzen, M., Stokking, K., et al. (2003). Werken met
een elektronisch portfolio. Groningen: Wolters-Noordhoff.
The Centre for Lifelong Learning (2008) Personal Development Tutorials [online] Accessed 14 February (2008)
http://www.liv.ac.uk/pdtutorials/index.htm
The General Teaching Council for Scotland. (2006). Standard for Initial Teacher Education. Retrieved 21 August
2009, from
http://www.gtcs.org.uk/Publications/StandardsandRegulations/The_Standard_for_Initial_Teacher_Education
_(ITE).aspx
Thorpe, M. (1998) Assessment and 'third generation' distance education. Distance Education, 19, 265-286
University of Dundee (2008) MyDundee University of Dundee [online] Accessed 28 February 2008
https://my.dundee.ac.uk/webapps/portal/frameset.jsp
Wijnand, A. (2004) Digital portfolio: tool for flexible learning and teaching in competency focussed higher
education. In M. Veugelers & A. Wijnand (Eds.), Electronic Portfolio in the Netherlands; Some Articles, p. 7 -
14. Utrecht: Stichting SURF. [online] Accessed 16 March 2007 http://www.e-
learning.surf.nl/docs/portfolio/electronic_portfolio_in_the_netherlands.pdf
www.ejel org 29 ISSN 1479-4403
Electronic Journal of e-Learning Volume 8 Issue 1 2010, (21 - 30)
www.ejel.org 30 ©Academic Conferences Ltd
