Jafari, A. (2004) ‘The “sticky” e-portfolio system’

Jafari, A. (2004) ‘The “sticky” e-portfolio system: tackling challenges and identifying attributes’ [online], Educause Review, vol. 39, no. 4 (July/August), pp. 38–49. Available from: http://www.educause.edu/ir/library/pdf/erm0442.pdf (accessed 15 September 2008)

Jafari’s article has a strong HE focus in which he refers to the conept of a “sticky” e-portfolio, one which “works and that is adopted by its users.” A concise definiton of an e-portfolio is suggested as “a personal, lifelong content-management system for collecting, reflecting on, selecting, and presenting learning outcomes and other professional accomplishments.” The author goes on to describe perceived uses of an e-portfolio from the perspectives of various stakeholders encompassing portfolios for assessment, career placement, program accreditation and report compiling. (Interestingly, some of these do not have a user focus which is surprising given that the development of an e-portfolio implies personal ownership.)

In order to mitigate confusion, Jafari outlines some of the emergent e-portfolio ‘labels’ that afford particular purposes. Student learning portfolio, career portfolio, institutional portfolio, department portfolio, faculty portfolio, student portfolio, lifelong portfolio and course portfolios are mentioned (in my own research I have encountered process portfolios and representational portfolios also). This does raise a tension between the use of portfolios across educational and career progression (transportability), however Jafari explains that it is through standarisation of platforms that this can be solved.

[Note Work is currently being undertaken by the JISC CETIS group for development of e-portfolio interoperability standards]

One of the key features of the article is that Jafari outlines what he sees as being the fundamental constituents of a successful e-portfolio. (Easy to use; Advanced features; Lifelong support; Standards & transportability; Robust intgrated technology architecture; Sustainable business plan) Some of these dimensions I agree with as being important, however I feel that since the article was written, that there are now a substantial number of existing platforms that could be deemed to be ‘robust’. (Mehara, PebblePad, OSPI, Drupal, Moodle etc) – software development need not take place to the extent suggested as open source platforms are already available.

One attribute that is missing is that of student ownership. It is a less tangible concept, but there needs to be a balance struck between the user’s ownership of the tool and their content versus its function. E.g. A learner using an e-portfolio specifically for assessment may perceive the use of the tool as being of benefit to the institution, not the learner.