1. ePortfolios and Literacy Learning

[1] Recently, the AAC&U added eportfolio pedagogy as a high impact practice (Batson et al., 2017). There is a large body of work examining eportfolios’ ability to support metacognition and identity negotiation (e.g. Eynon, Gambino, and Kuh, 2017; Jenson 2011; Peet et al. 2011). However, not all institutions have the funding to purchase an application to try this pedagogy. Using free versions of applications to create online websites is a good way to become familiar with this practice in a low stakes way. Different applications have varying levels of complexity, such as how many levels of menus are needed for editing, whether there are drag and drop design elements, or what media formats are available to embed or link to within the editing mode. As a result, instructors need to choose online applications appropriate to their own technology skills as well as the technology skills of their students. To create an effective eportfolio using a free website creation application, one needs the ability to create a navigation menu, pages with subpages, and multimedia objects. This technology review discusses three popular, free website applications for creating literacy learning eportfolios: Google Sites, Weebly, and WordPress. We will compare the applications for literacy learning, ease of use, and possible challenges and concerns.

[2] Bret Eynon, Laura M. Gambino, and George Kuh (2017) argue that eportfolios are a high impact practice because they can support student success and can encourage reflective, integrative, deep learning. As a high impact practice, eportfolios have the potential to be powerful spaces for literacy learning. Charles Bazerman (2016) suggested that in order for students to develop more fully as writers, they need to engage in writing opportunities outside of the classroom that require them to work through problem-solving activities. Eportfolios can be public documents, available on the web, and therefore available to different audiences. Students can make sites designed for these audiences and use social media to draw the audience to their work.

​[3] Developing a similar line of thinking, Elizabeth Wardle and Kevin Roozen (2012) described what they saw as “vertical” and “horizontal” models of literacy development to arrive at their “ecological” model of writing. They pointed out that most writing assessment has a “monocontextual view of literacy development that privileges school settings and growing expertise in school settings” (p. 108). Horizontal models of literacy development track the simultaneous literate activities in which students engage. In contrast, an ecological view of writing looks at “an individual’s writing abilities as developing across an expansive network that links together a broad range of literate experiences over lengthy periods of time” (Wardle & Roozen, 2012, p. 108). ePortfolios allow students to document what Wardle and Roozen are calling the “broad range of literate experiences” (p. 108). This work of connecting is achieved through creating a digital space where pieces of writing can create context for each other: a research paper can be juxtaposed with a related reflection, infographic, and multimedia presentation. In order to support literacy learning, eportfolios must be more than a “repository of work; an eportfolio should be a student-centered collection of work that supports deeper learning and self-reflection” (Oehlman et al., 2016, p. 13).

​[4] ePortfolios can be used to structure a learning environment that supports students’ literacy development. To achieve the promise of eportfolios for literacy learning, students must engage in creating learning eportfolios that support their development as writers. Elizabeth Meyer et al. (2008) described what they call “process eportfolios” as a means to scaffold “knowledge construction by supporting reflection, refinement, conferencing, and other processes of self-regulation, important skills for life-long learning and learning how to learn” (p. 85). Similarly, Jill D. Jenson and Paul Treuer (2014) identified five levels of thinking needed so eportfolios can be used as “learning tools”:

1. Collecting relevant artifacts that document learning.
2. Self-regulation to become aware of and exercise behavior that leads to learning.
3. Critical reflection by contextualizing the meaning and significance of their learning in terms of established goals and values systems.
4. Integrating their learning [through] synthesizing their experiences and transferring them to new situations.
5. Collaboration by building upon their existing knowledge and applying it in a community with others. (p. 53)

Each of these levels builds upon the previous one in increasing intellectual difficulty. Instructors need to think through how each level is presented and built upon as they work through their course.

[5] In order to be able to realize these benefits of eportfolios, instructors and students must face the technological requirements that come with the “e” of eportfolios. There are various web-site applications that facilitate the creation of eportfolios. Table 1 (ePortfolio Applications and Five Levels of Thinking) illustrates how Google Sites, Weebly, and WordPress facilitate the five levels of thinking identified by Jenson and Treuer.

[6] Table 1 shows how each ePortfolio application can be used to help students collect artifacts to demonstrate their learning. ePortfolios provide a space for self-regulatory behaviors when they are used consistently throughout a course. Applications that are easy to learn and create can better support self-regulation. ePortfolios also provide a space for students to reflect on their learning by juxtaposing the artifact with the relevant reflective writing. In addition, ePortfolios enable students to document how they use literacy concepts and processes across courses. Students can post artifacts from other writing situations to demonstrate how they transfer their literacy across contexts. Finally, students are able to collaborate in the construction of their ePortfolios through application features such as comments and site sharing.

2. The Technology of ePortfolios

[7] There are many private vendors of eportfolio software products that facilitate the use of eportfolios, such as Digication or PebblePad. However, before committing to a vendor, or if one does not have sufficient funding for a campus-wide system, one might experiment with free web-site applications.

[8] Frequently used free applications include the newest version of Google Sites (http://sites.google.com), Weebly (http://weebly.com), and WordPress (http://wordpress.com). The upgraded Google Sites, formally called “New Google Sites” in contrast to the “Classic Google Sites” (which is being phased out) is a Google-based application that is very easy to use due to its drag-and-drop design elements and integration with Google Drive. It is a good application to begin with for users new to eportfolios or for students who may not have an extensive background in computer usage. Google Sites requires a Google account to login, and it interfaces easily with other Google products such as Google Drive and YouTube. There are basic privacy settings that limit sharing and search engine visibility, and users can upload graphics that are located in Google Drive as well as easily embed YouTube videos on the webpages. The navigation is now drag-and-drop, and the banners are more sophisticated than in older versions of Google Sites. There is an extensive, official support database to help students and teachers when working with the application, and there are many user-generated “how to” videos on YouTube. The limitations of Google Sites are related to its simplicity: customization is limited, pages cannot be individually password protected, and the URL will always be long.

[9] Weebly is another popular application that has a few more features available than Google Sites. It is fairly easy to use as it is based on drag-and-drop editing, although novice users may need help with the various editing menus. There is a range of specialized pages, such as a blog page or a gallery page, and the banners can be customized for each page. Students can begin the eportfolio-building process from a wide range of templates. Pages can be password protected or hidden from search engines should a student desire privacy for a piece of writing. Additionally, like Google Sites, Weebly automatically adjusts for mobile devices and offers a preview option for different devices in the editing view. In the free version, one can embed videos, but in the pro version available for a fee, there are more embedding and linking options. Also, with the pro version, one can have a streamlined URL for the site. Users can email or chat for help in the free version, but there is phone help with the pro version. The limitations of Weebly are that the learning curve is a little steeper than Google Sites, and one must pay for the pro version for more advanced options, but students can build a functional eportfolio quite well with the free version.

[10] WordPress has been very popular with bloggers for many years, and about a third of personal websites are made through WordPress, based on surveys of content management usage (W3Techs Web Technology Survey, 2019). It can be extensively customized, but with that flexibility comes a slightly more complex user editing interface. With an experienced coach, beginning web users can successfully build a basic WordPress site, but the interface might be easier to learn quickly for users more experienced with website building and coding. A student can password protect sites or pages. Multimedia can be easily uploaded and embedded, and there is extensive support through the WordPress help site. However, one must upgrade to the premium version for more options and services such as a wider range of interactive page themes, media embedding, and developer support. An additional limitation is that one may need to add a plug-in (software added onto an application to increase its functions) to make a WordPress site easy to use on mobile devices. For example, Brian Jackson (2018), writing for a WordPress hosting site, reviews several plug-ins that WordPress users might use for mobile devices. However, a student creating a WordPress site for a classroom learning portfolio may not need this capability

[11] In general, Google Sites is good for beginners, Weebly for intermediate users, and WordPress for more advanced users. Nevertheless, beginners and advanced student users can create excellent eportfolios for programs or courses using any of these popular applications with good guidance. Instructors new to eportfolios might begin with Google Sites or Weebly, depending on their comfort learning new applications. We recommend that an instructor have a sample site built before class begins in order to work through the technical requirements being asked of students as well as providing a sample of what the final site will look like for the students. In Table 2. (Technology Summary), we offer a description of the technical considerations for selecting an eportfolio application.

[12] Accessibility often depends more on a browser’s capabilities to interact with web content than the application. Chrome (Google Chrome Help, 2017) is a Google product, so Google Sites interacts best through Chrome. Chrome offers extensions that allows users to navigate using the keyboard, adjust webpage colors, adjust or remove colors, see existing alt text, and create long descriptions. Firefox (Mozilla Support, 2017) offers many functions to increase accessibility such as using a keyboard, mouse shortcuts, zooming features, and compatibility with screen readers. Similar to Firefox, Explorer (Microsoft Support, 2017) offers functions such as using a keyboard and zooming, as well as screen reader and voice recognition options. How the design appears across different devices depends on the application. As noted above, Google Sites and Weebly provide specific views for different devices although WordPress requires a plug-in. The only browser that causes difficulties is Internet Explorer. For example, as of 2019, Internet Explorer will allow viewing a Google Site, but when attempting to go to http://sites.google.com/, the browser window that come up reads, “To create or edit a site, open the new Google Sites with Chrome, Firefox or Safari, or use Classic Sites.”

[13] ​In addition to having the browser capabilities, all three applications also offer some accessibility features for the user building the site. Google Sites (Google, 2017) allows keyboard navigation and is compatible with screen readers. Weebly (Ckimbaravosky, 2018) remains dependent on browser accessibility and does not offer special accessibility options for editing. WordPress (WordPress Codex, 2017) does offer accessibility functions, but they are dependent on coding knowledge so that for more novice users, one remains dependent on the browser for accessibility.

2.1 FERPA Compliance

[14] Because an eportfolio in these free applications is often publicly available on the web, there may be concerns about privacy and consent. FERPA is the Family Educational Rights and Privacy Act of 1974. It is a federal law that protects the privacy of students’ educational records and guarantees students’ access to their own records. Educational records include test forms, school evaluations, and complaints. School work, such as the work posted in an eportfolio, is not a formal student record, but any grades associated with that featured work are considered part of a student’s record. The case of Owasso Independent School District v. Falvo went before the U.S. Supreme Court to determine if peer grading violated FERPA since the student work being peer reviewed might be seen as an educational record. However, the court ruled that peer grading does not violate FERPA, noting that peer reviewers “did not constitute a person acting for an educational institution within FERPA” (“Owasso Independent School District No. I-011v Falvo”). Thus, we recommend not having any formal assessments be completed on the eportfolio. Assessment activity should remain behind the firewall of the learning management system in order to be compliant with FERPA regulations. Having a public eportfolio is also a valuable teachable moment in discussing what it means to put materials on the web and the nature of digital privacy.

​[15] Nevertheless, some institutions, such as the University of Oregon, ask students to sign a “Consent for Disclosure of Education Record: ePortfolio Participation.” This “Consent for Disclosure” is intended to be a formal release of an eportfolio as an educational record, which is available for others to see, such as by other students during peer review. Marisa Ramirez and Gail MacMillan (2010) note that FERPA compliance is murky when it comes to eportfolios, and they explain that the problem hinges on the public nature of the material in eportfolios. They suggest that it is important for students to be fully aware of the public nature of work published on the web. This awareness can be through a class discussion, a syllabus statement, and a written reflection by the students on the front page of the portfolio that discusses how the public nature of the eportfolio affects the writing process.

3. Conclusion

[16] ePortfolios can help students improve their literacy learning and reflective metacognition as well as facilitate holistic assessment at many levels (e.g. Batson et al., 2017, Bokser et al, 2016; Miller and Morgaine, 2009). ePortfolios provide the opportunity to develop a more expansive definition of literacy and literacy learning that includes self-regulated learning, metacognitive/reflective learning, multiliteracies, and self-identity (e.g. Eynon, Gambino and Török). ePortfolios allow students the opportunity to identify their own goals for literacy learning (e.g. Acker and Halasek, 2008; Light, Chen and Ittelson, 2012). Composing in this digital, public environment creates an opportunity for students to present themselves and to document the development of their academic/professional identities (e.g. Oehlman et al., 2016). Using free applications, such as Google Sites, Weebly, and WordPress can be a good way to start experimenting with eportfolios. These applications offer different levels of usability that instructors can choose from to best fit the needs of their students. While the technology may seem to be a significant part of the eportfolio experience, once a user is familiar with the basic functions, the benefits of using eportfolios for literacy learning become clear as the key element of this high impact practice.