1

DIGITAL PORTFOLIOS AND COMMUNICATION

Running Head: DIGITAL PORTFOLIOS AND COMMUNICATION

 2
DIGITAL PORTFOLIOS AND COMMUNICATION
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
DIGITAL PORTFOLIOS AND COMMUNICATION
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
DIGITAL PORTFOLIOS AND COMMUNICATION
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
DIGITAL PORTFOLIOS AND COMMUNICATION
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
DIGITAL PORTFOLIOS AND COMMUNICATION
(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
DIGITAL PORTFOLIOS AND COMMUNICATION
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
DIGITAL PORTFOLIOS AND COMMUNICATION
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
DIGITAL PORTFOLIOS AND COMMUNICATION
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
DIGITAL PORTFOLIOS AND COMMUNICATION
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
DIGITAL PORTFOLIOS AND COMMUNICATION
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
DIGITAL PORTFOLIOS AND COMMUNICATION
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
DIGITAL PORTFOLIOS AND COMMUNICATION
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
DIGITAL PORTFOLIOS AND COMMUNICATION
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
DIGITAL PORTFOLIOS AND COMMUNICATION
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
DIGITAL PORTFOLIOS AND COMMUNICATION
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
DIGITAL PORTFOLIOS AND COMMUNICATION
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
DIGITAL PORTFOLIOS AND COMMUNICATION
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
DIGITAL PORTFOLIOS AND COMMUNICATION
the genres they wrote within and the important reasons why writers might select specific

genres to convey their thoughts.

________________

Insert Figure 2 here

________________

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.

________________

Insert Figure 3 here

________________

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
DIGITAL PORTFOLIOS AND COMMUNICATION
on her mind. This is a tip peer writers might benefit from when reading through Emma’s

portfolio.

________________

Insert Figure 4 here

________________

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
DIGITAL PORTFOLIOS AND COMMUNICATION
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
DIGITAL PORTFOLIOS AND COMMUNICATION
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
DIGITAL PORTFOLIOS AND COMMUNICATION
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.”)

________________

Insert Figure 5 here

________________

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
DIGITAL PORTFOLIOS AND COMMUNICATION
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
DIGITAL PORTFOLIOS AND COMMUNICATION
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
DIGITAL PORTFOLIOS AND COMMUNICATION
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
DIGITAL PORTFOLIOS AND COMMUNICATION
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
DIGITAL PORTFOLIOS AND COMMUNICATION
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
DIGITAL PORTFOLIOS AND COMMUNICATION
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
DIGITAL PORTFOLIOS AND COMMUNICATION
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
DIGITAL PORTFOLIOS AND COMMUNICATION
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
DIGITAL PORTFOLIOS AND COMMUNICATION
(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
DIGITAL PORTFOLIOS AND COMMUNICATION
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.