CHAPTER 11

E-PORTFOLIO AT UTM: A
REFLECTION ON ITS JOURNEY
Wardah Zainal Abidin

Universiti Teknologi Malaysia

INTRODUCTION

On the 1st of December 2006, the implementation of ePortfolio at

Universiti Teknologi Malaysia (UTM) was made official. It
started upon approval by the University Senate of UTM a proposal
submitted by a committee of thirteen people headed by the Centre
of Teaching and Learning (CTL) to implement the Student
Portfolio Development Program to its undergraduate students in
the main campus in Johor (CTL, 2006).
Prior to this several workshops and meetings were
conducted to look into the issues relating to employability of local
graduates in the local job market. Almost a national issue, the
industries and employers claimed that a majority of university
graduates lack the necessary skills such as communication and
team-working skills, which are needed to complement their
technical know-how to function as effective workers. In response
to this, UTM outlined seven graduate attributes that a UTM
graduate must possess upon graduation (CTL).
In order to achieve this objective, it is the belief that
students must be conscious of their learning processes and be given
opportunities to conduct a fair amount of self-reflection on their
244 E-learning Technologies and Applications

activities in class as well as outside the campus (Dearing, 1997).

This is also found to be in line with the OBE or Outcome-Based
Education approach which is another next big wave to hit the
university in order to render it compliant with the Washington
Accord for its engineering programs.
Hence all these factors become the internal motivation for
the university to adopt the e-portfolio for its undergraduate
students. However, the journey towards developing and
implementing the e-portfolio to the students and academic advisors
prove to be an uphill road. Two years after its official launch by
the Minister of Higher Education on the 14th of July, 2007,
whereby the program was introduced to the July intake students, it
is timely to conduct a “reflection” on the UTM e-portfolio project
itself, in order to appraise current situations to date, and
subsequently re-ascertain strategies for future plans.
Being the pioneer in Malaysia to adopt e-portfolio as well
as OBE, UTM does not have the luxury to make comparisons with
any local universities. This article shall explore and delve into two
main areas: current knowledge, research and lessons learned on e-
portfolio from other universities overseas, and possible suggestions
for future undertakings for UTM ePortfolio endeavour.

CURRENT KNOWLEDGE AND LESSONS LEARNED ON

E-PORTFOLIO

This section briefly sets the background for electronic portfolios in

higher education at universities in the USA. Topics which shall be
covered are definition, types, functions, and common issues.
Results come from articles, reports, web sites of collaborative e-
groups on e-Portfolios, Handbook summary and personal blogs on
e-Portfolios.
E-Portfolio at UTM: A Reflection on Its Journey 245

DEFINITION

Definitions for portfolios and electronic portfolios in the context of

higher education are numerous. Among the most comprehensive is
taken from a report released by the eCDF e-Portfolio Project, 2006,
in New Zealand, looking into developing an electronic portfolio for
the country’s tertiary sector (Butler, 2006). According to Butler,
the project team gathered over 145 articles in their literature quest.
Below are the definitions of portfolios and electronic
portfolios extracted from the report.

Portfolios:

'Very simply put, a portfolio is a collection of evidence that

is gathered together to show a person’s learning journey over time
and to demonstrate their abilities. Portfolios can be specific to a
particular discipline, or very broadly encompass a person’s
lifelong learning. Many different kinds of evidence can be used in a
portfolio: samples of writing, both finished and unfinished;
photographs; videos; research projects; observations and
evaluations of supervisors, mentors and peers; and reflective
thinking about all of these. In fact, it is the reflections on the pieces
of evidence, the reasons they were chosen and what the portfolio
creator learned from them, that are the key aspect to a portfolio
(Abrami & Barrett, 2005; Klenowski, Askew, & Carnell, 2006;
Loughran & Corrigan, 1995; Smith & Tillema, 2003; Wade &
Yarbrough, 1996). In that way, those compiling portfolios are
active participants in their own learning (Wade, Abrami, & Sclater,
2005). Kimball (2005, p. 451) goes further, arguing that “neither
collection nor selection (of pieces to be incorporated into a
portfolio) are worthwhile learning tasks without a basis in
reflection. Reflection undergirds the entire pedagogy of portfolios”.
Two other key elements to portfolios are that they measure
learning and development over time (Barrett, 2000; Challis, 2005),
and that it is the process of constructing a portfolio, rather than
246 E-learning Technologies and Applications

the end product, that is where the learning takes place (Smith &
Tillema, 2003).'

Electronic Portfolios:

An electronic portfolio (also known as an ePortfolio, e-

portfolio, efolio, digital portfolio, webfolio and so on) is essentially
an electronic version of a paper-based portfolio, created in a
computer environment, and incorporating not just text, but graphic,
audio and video material as well. Abrami and Barrett (2005,
online) define an electronic portfolio as: “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”. Challis (2005,
online) provides a more in depth definition:

An ePortfolio is described as:

• Selective and structured collections of information

• Gathered for specific purposes and showing/evidencing
one’s accomplishments and growth which are
• Stored digitally and managed by appropriate software
• Developed by using appropriate multimedia and
customarily within a web environment and
• Retrieved from a website, or delivered by CD-ROM or
by DVD.

Greenberg, 2004, argued that work is still underway

towards a common definition for ePortfolio. According to him,
“ideally, all work in an electronic portfolio not only is digital but
also is available on the Internet” (Gary, 2004). Greenberg, further
detailed ePortfolio in the following scope:

• ePortfolio is not simply a personal home page with

links to examples of work;
E-Portfolio at UTM: A Reflection on Its Journey 247

• unlike a typical application program, such as word

processing, an ePortfolio is a network application
that provides the author with administrative
functions for managing and organizing work (files)
created with different applications and for
controlling who can see the work and who can
discuss the work (access);

• unlike a course management system, in which

instructors manage assignments and materials
within the framework of a specific course,
ePortfolios are controlled by the author (student),
who manages his or her work across multiple
courses throughout an academic career; and

• the benefits of ePortfolio thinking can be realized

only through communication services: the
exchange of comments between the author and
teachers, mentors, or coaches; the discussions and
peer review with classmates, colleagues, or friends;
the feedback for specific questions and concerns;
and the personal reflection on work in progress or
completed.

Types

The multitude of e-portfolio definitions above, suggests that the e-

Portfolios has many types depending on its uses.
248 E-learning Technologies and Applications
Table 1 Three types of ePortfolio - organization
Showcase ePortfolio Structured ePortfolio
• organization: occurs after • organization: predefined
the work has been created and exist for work that
is yet to be created
• enables the author to share • demonstrating
specific examples of work accomplishments for
and to control who can see certification or
these collections, most fulfillments of specific
simply by setting and then requirements is a
distributing passwords for common goal
different audiences • provide opportunities
for developing new
approaches to
assessment
• should provide a • Significant mentoring is
stimulating context for necessary eg assist with
reflecting on a body of student advising and
work in order to make new career planning
connections, personalize • usually adhere to certain
learning experiences, and standards and
gain insights that will certification
influence future activities requirements as in
• Without supporting teaching programs eg:
reflection, a showcase “Learning Matrix” of
ePortfolio can be reduced formal learning
to merely a collection of objectives and student
artifacts outcomes as a way to
ensure that an
institution’s
commitment to learning
is being achieved by all
students
Eg: Eg:
• PennState University • Rose-Hulman Institute
• Elon University of Technology
• Florida State University • Centre for Technology
in Education at Johns
Hopkins
In terms of organisation of the ePortfolio it can be
categorized into three types of ePortfolios as: showcase ePortfolio,
structured ePortfolio and Learning ePortfolio (Gary, 2004). When
Learning ePortfolio
• organization: evolves
as the work is
created; dynamic
• The organization of
work evolves over
time as tasks are
identified, worked
on, and completed in
response to the
author’s changing
interests,
requirements, and
understanding
• Essential to any
learning ePortfolio
are communication
services
• Encourage reflection
to better their
learning processes
• extend beyond the
time frame of
specific courses, and
involve reorganizing
work and dynamic
interactions among
changing
communities of
people
• provide opportunities
to better understand
student learning
patterns
Eg:
• Catalyst, University
of Washington
E-Portfolio at UTM: A Reflection on Its Journey 249

considering the toolset of ePortfolios i.e. development approach,

there are four types: homegrown, open source, commercial and
common tools. In this article we shall only focus on student
ePortfolios and shall not discuss the other two types of ePortfolio
users, i.e. graduates moving into or through the workforce, and for
institutions for program assessment or accreditation (Lorenzo &
Ittelson, 2005).The next table is a tabulation of the observations
made from literature of the various ePortfolios developed in
overseas institutions.

Table 2 Summary of ePortfolios at Higher Institutions in the USA

Institu- Originated by Tool Set Main Take up Others

tion Features Rate

DU- • Bottom-up • Homegrown • For all • Nearly • Free

Port- with top-down • Sun Microsystems users: 50% by for life;
folio support: with Oracle back-end student, 2nd year no
Com- • Late 1990's: it enterprise database alumni, • By stora-
munity was initially and housed on three faculty and 2004: ge
meant for servers commu- 6400 e- quota
students and • Four years to develop: nity Portfolio
faculty in the started in late 90's (group- by
School of • Application is based), students,
Communicati comprised of 300 institution staff &
on with screens alumni
$230,000.00 • Developed internally - inclu-
grant, but later e-portfolio committee: ding 540
sparked students, faculty and faculty
interest from staff representative e-Ps
all and • First launched: in (total
became a September 2002 under-
campus • Fully integrated with graduate
project DU's enterprise-wide and
• Launched in administrative graduate
September computing students:
2002 (4 years environment 10,000
development) • Maintained by in 2005)
Technology Services - approx
Department 50% by
students
250 E-learning Technologies and Applications

(continue)Table 2 Summary of ePortfolios at Higher Institutions in the

USA

Institu- Originated by Tool Set Main Take up Others

tion Features Rate

UW - • Top-down • Homegrown • "a big • 2002:

Cata- with bottom- • Database driven dumb smart 80% of
lyst up buy-in: tool": Fresh-
Port- • Started in • a big file man use
folio December manager the e-
Tool 2001: request which has portfolio
from "action templates • 2005:
plan group" to for many portfolio
have a tool for functions created
students to for users to by
document publish to 15,000
their work the web students
during their and
study in a 1200
progressive instruc-
manner tors,
• Learning advisors,
ePortfolio and
type mentors
• Basi-
cally a
big file
manager
which
has tem-
plates
for many
func-
tions for
users to
publish
to the
web
• Allows
users
with
HTML
skills to
add to
their
design
of e-
portfolio
E-Portfolio at UTM: A Reflection on Its Journey 251

(continue)Table 2 Summary of ePortfolios at Higher Institutions in the

USA

Institu- Originated by Tool Set Main Take up Others

tion Features Rate

UNO • Bottom-up: • Homegrown • Designed • 2005: • As a

Uni. Of • For • Several faculty to systema- 1500 model
Nebra- undergraduate members involvement tically students for
ska at at College of in a project (PT3) with demon- had e- UNO
Omaha Education - grant (PT3= strate the portfolio VC (A)
later to be "Preparing growth of a which to
introduced to Tomorrow's Teachers teacher artifacts deve-
other faculty to use Technology") candidates linked to lop for
• 2002: Formed E- • Commu- INTASC campus
CORE - technology nicate the princi- -wide
staff, PT3 Coordinator scope of ples initia-
and 5 College College of tive
department chairs Education
program
and its
alignment

Virginia • Top-down: • Open source: • Introduced • Faculty

Tech • Suggested by • 2002-3: a Task force to 12 of Engi-
a core was formed faculties; neering
committee • 2003: decided to join including showed
OSPI; with "a fair engi- interest
amount of neering; in
modification" to the incorpo-
OSPI code rating e-
portfolio
as a
measure
of
program
assess-
ment for
its
students;
started
with
750,
subsequ-
ent
semester
in-
creased
to 1400
students
252 E-learning Technologies and Applications

(continue)Table 2 Summary of ePortfolios at Higher Institutions in the

USA

Institu- Originated by Tool Set Main Take up Others

tion Features Rate

Universi • Bottom-up: • Open source: • targeted • Commit-

ty of • From PT3 • Spring 2004; joined teacher tee is set
Texas at Grant the OSPI education up to
San initiative • Taken 3 years and still program look into
Anto- in developmental stage • Entire introdu-
nio special- cing the
(UTSA) education entire
student univer-
population sity
was using
the system

Wes- • Not specified: • Commercial: uses • Only at the • In 2005, • Stu-

tern Taskstream Teachers 200 new dents
Gover- College users per pay
nors • Use as part month; less
Universi of total than
-ty "demonstra enroll- $50
(WGU) -tion ment,
teaching" 2130
component students

Penn • Showcase: • Free-form and open • Personalise • Students

State • but guides undergrads their make
Univer- to make the e-P useful learning reflec-
sity for job interviews and experiences tions,fu-
graduate application , share ture
authentic plans
examples etc. For
of work career
help &
inter-
views

Elon • Showcase • Has templates to help • Students

Universi students to organise decide
-ty their works, highlights how
from non academic much of
experiences, resumes, template
and reflections on their they
campus experiences want &
they
control
what is
actually
shared
E-Portfolio at UTM: A Reflection on Its Journey 253

(continue)Table 2 Summary of ePortfolios at Higher Institutions in the

USA

Institu- Originated by Tool Set Main Take up Others

tion Features Rate

Florida • Showcase • OSPI; • Dedicated

Univer- • career portfolio for career
sity planning
and job
search for
undergra-
duates

Functions

Among the various functions of ePortfolios, three stand out in

importance; as a vehicle for fostering integrative abilities; as a
vehicle for assessment and a hiring tool.

Issues

The ePortConsortium.org is a collaborative cyber community that

connects individuals and institutions who are interested in the
development of ePortfolios. Following the discussions in the group
shows that that the ePortfolio has some real issues to overcome.
Unlike the CMS (course management system) where it gained
popularity among faculty after they started to use them, it is not the
same as ePortfolio.
254 E-learning Technologies and Applications

Two main challenges still remain despite the ePortfolio is

almost a decade since the concept and technology was introduced.
First challenge is that the current ePortfolio solutions and systems
are not attractive enough to the end users—that is, the ePortfolio
does not draw the end user back time and again, and thus has not
become integrated into the lives of end users.
The second challenge is that an ePortfolio solution must
offer all expected functional and technical requirements in a
transparent and user-friendly environment. It must be able to
integrate with other technology systems (such as CMS, Campus
Portals) in order to offer an interoperable “working” environment.

WHAT NEXT FOR UTM EPORTFOLIO?

Current UTM ePortfolio Profile

The current ePortfolio system found in UTM can be summarised as

follows:

• homegrown type with its own set of opportunities and

challenges
• a combination of showcase, structured and learning
ePortfolio
• main aim is to capture evidence of acquiring generic
skills during stay at UTM
• in support of OBE accreditation requirements
• limited to student ePortfolio type only
• allows reflections by students but against a fixed
template
• allows reflections and evidences to be communicated
with academic advisers only and not course owners
E-Portfolio at UTM: A Reflection on Its Journey 255

• the usage is still voluntary and not mandatory nor

embedded into the students programs
• not integrated with the CMS or eLearning system nor
other university systems
• structured and students must follow a fixed template
• no room for creativity among students
• more for the benefit of administrators than for students
learning
• career advising is still not evident
• has a lot of opportunities to explore and able to learn
from mistakes of others
• responsibility of project success is unclear due to
ownership issues
• IT infrastructure capacity and security issues are still
not fully tested due to low usage

UTM Scenario

The “acceptance” level of the ePortfolio by the students and

faculty members is still very low. This is acceptable since the
ePortfolio is still in its infancy. UTM’s e-Learning system was
first introduced in 2004 and only now do we see its usage level
increasing steadily.
On the other hand, as mentioned above regarding the two
big challenges facing ePortfolio in other institutions, the possibility
of UTM facing them is also real unless we take appropriate
measures to overcome these issues.
A few workshops conducted by CTL were made to discuss
and offer strategies to ensure the uptake of ePortfolio among
students is high. A few research projects, funded internally, have
been approved towards this matter.
256 E-learning Technologies and Applications

Serious training of key trainers among students and faculty

members has been identified as one of the major steps to be carried
out soon. Other than that, efforts are being taken to integrate
ePortfolio with eLearning and other related systems. Once the
students are hooked and convinced that ePortfolio is good for them
even after graduation, this would increase the usage level.

Re-look at the Objectives

From the literature reviews it is worth to note that the UTM

ePortfolio project should be reviewed and re-affirmed in terms of
its nature, type, approach, usage, policy and other related matters
but this time with the involvement of students.
It is also interesting to note that by using ePortfolios it is
possible to expose the learning process through comments,
discussions, feedback, and reflections. While the current models
of conducting discussions are in the form of attachments to email,
forums, and chatting, these methods are unable to make the
connections fluid and histories of interactions clearly visible and
traceable. Hence, the teaching and learning paradigm should also
be re-visited to cater for the new ICT-enabled environment, i.e. the
Web2.0.
The scope of the ePortfolio should also be opened to
communities or groups of people in a project especially in
Research Alliances or Centres of Excellence. This will create a
wealth of information and knowledge in a community-enabled
environment where knowledge-sharing can be fully optimised. In
fact, community ePortfolios can be valuable assets to the
University as analogous to the library or the organisation’s
archives.
E-Portfolio at UTM: A Reflection on Its Journey 257

REFERENCES

Butler, P. (2006). A Review of the Literature on Portfolios and

Electronic Portfolios. Massey University College of
Education: Massey University College of Education.
CPP Committee. (2004). The FSU Online Career Portfolio
Program (CPP): An Evaluation Report. Florida State
University.
CTL. (n.d.). Generic Skills And UTM's Graduate Attributes.
Retrieved December 15, 2008, from Universiti Teknologi
Malaysia: http://www.ctl.utm.my/students/attributes.htm
CTL. (2006, December 1). Kertas Kerja Cadangan Program
Pembangunan Portfolio Pelajar. Kertas Kerja Senat, UTM .
Skudai, Johor, Malaysia.
Dearing, R. (1997). Report of the National Committee of Inquiry
into Higher Education. Secretaries of State for Education
and Employment.
Gary, G. (2004). The Digital Convergence: Extending the Portfolio
Model. Educause Review , 28-36.
Lorenzo, G., & Ittelson, J. (2005). An Overview of ePortfolios.
Educause Learning Initiative , 1-28.
Young, J. R. (2002, March 8). ‘E-Portfolios’ Could Give Students
a New Sense of Their Accomplishments: Online Archives
of Educational Experiences May Help Graduates Land Jobs.
Young, J. R. (March 8, 2002). “‘E-Portfolios’ Could Give
Students a New Sense of Their Accomplishments: Online
Archives of EducationChronicle of Higher Education , pp.
A31–32.