• If you are citizen of an European Union member nation, you may not use this service unless you are at least 16 years old.

  • You already know Dokkio is an AI-powered assistant to organize & manage your digital files & messages. Very soon, Dokkio will support Outlook as well as One Drive. Check it out today!


Evolving List of ePortfolio-related Tools

This version was saved 11 years, 9 months ago View current version     Page history
Saved by Helen
on October 22, 2012 at 9:35:38 am

ePortfolio-related Tools and Technologies

 Updated 8/25/12

For the archived list, click here.


Ways You Can Help:

We are continually updating the ePAC wiki to include a refreshed look at ePortfolio systems.


Would you please consider helping us out by filling out this short survey?  You can provide new or updated information via the form.

**Please review Section IV below to make sure your school isn't already represented!


Here's the form:  https://spreadsheets.google.com/viewform?formkey=dGU4a1l1dDcyb2N6UkVkR2NrTzhyamc6MQ


Want to add a system? contact J. Elizabeth Clark at lclark [at] lagcc [dot] cuny [dot] edu.


I.  Alphabetical List of Systems


Disclaimer: Please note that the purpose of this list is to provide a comprehensive overview of available ePortfolio-related tools (the definition ePortfolio is broadly defined here).  EPAC does not advocate nor recommend any specific ePortfolio tool, product, or technology.  Inclusion in this list should not be considered an endorsement.  We try to keep our community informed about the range of products currently in use in order to allow our members to exchange personal experiences, best practices, and suggestions for what questions to keep in mind and issues to consider when deciding which ePortfolio technology to adopt and implement.  This list was compiled from existing resources and we welcome any and all suggestions for additions and changes. 



Most of the above represent some kind of online tools and services.  Other kinds of tools being used to create ePortfolios include:


II. ePortfolio Tools & Deployment


There are different deployments of ePortfolio tools that have different implications for learners and institutions. The list above is alphabetical but we are in the process of adding the following notations to indicate the common means of deployment.  We welcome your feedback on whether this approach is useful and how we can improve this coding scheme.


Institutional Deployment (coded 1): In this model, the institution operates the ePortfolio tool and students create portfolios within it. This has advantages for the institution in terms of having a dependable place for capturing student work, and depending on the tool, mechanisms to facilitate institution-wide assessment using the data housed in the tool. Centrally managed login and authorization can facilitate users getting quickly to the spaces they need and for the managing of private spaces for specific uses For learners, this model can offer templates that can structure the portfolio work and help get of the blank page. A down side for learners is that it may be difficult to take the portfolio with them when the leave the institution, and the tool may not allow them to capture all the aspects of their learning, because of specific institution foci for the portfolio.


Learner Deployment (coded 2): In this model the learner operates the ePortfolio tool. This might be as simple as a web site, or might be a user managed Drupal deployment. This model gives the user great flexibility, but requires substantial skill and commitment on the part of the learner. More commonly, and similar in in many respects, is the Third-Party deployment.


Third-Party Deployment (coded 3): In this model the learner adopts a third party tool, or tools, for the portfolio Two variants of this model of deployment. 1. The tool is specifically designed for use as a portfolio and 2. The tool is "worldware" developed for a broader audience and typically supported with a broadly-based business model. In either of these variants, the learner is in control of the content of the portfolio, not the institution. This kind of portfolio deployment raises problems for the institution related to institutional goals of access to the portfolio for program accountability. It is possible that the learner will take the portfolio down, or exclude the institution from continued access. However, this deployment solves the learner's problem of "taking it with them."  Helen Barrett describes these learner-owned portfolios as "digital archives"http://electronicportfolios.org/web2/index.html and has explored how they can be life-wide and life-long.


(With thanks to Nils Peterson of the Center for Teaching, Learning, and Technology at Washington State University for his significant contribution of the above categorizations)


III. Key Reasons Schools & Universities Adopt Systems/Platforms


In a 2011 survey of schools using ePortfolio, campuses (higher education) reported the following reasons for adopting ePortfolio (in order of responses, greatest to least). Please note this is not a comprehensive study. These results are based on a self-reported survey to the ePAC Community. This list will be updated periodically. (Last update: 7/6/2012)


  1. Documentation of student learning
  2. Course management
  3. Institutional/programmatic assessment
  4. Integrative learning/interdisciplinary learning
  5. General education
  6. Career development
  7. Reflection
  8. Professional development (faculty)
  9. Transfer


IV. Who Has Adopted Which System/Platform

**Please note this is not a comprehensive study. These results are based on a self-reported survey to the ePAC Community. This list will be updated periodically. (Last update: 7/26/2012)


  • Blackboard: Virginia State University (course portfolios, assessment, student learning); The University of Findlay (first-year composition, tenure and promotion dossiers)
  • Chalk and Wire: Oral Roberts University (assessment, student reflection); Spelman College (formative & summative assessment); St. Joseph's College - College of Education; Queens College - CUNY; Molloy College
  • CTDLC: Three Rivers Community College (reflective learning)
  • Desire 2 Learn: Portland Community College--in pilot stage (assessment, learning, professional development); Memorial University (career, course portfolio, student learning, general education)
  • Diagnostic Digital Portfolio (DDP): Alverno College (student learning)
  • Digication: Boston University College of General Studies (general education, assessment); LaGuardia Community College/CUNY (integrative learning, student learning, reflection, assessment, transfer); Long Island University (course and program assessment); Manhattanville College (student learning and assessment); Northwestern Connecticut Community College (student learning, integrative learning); Stony Brook University (integrative learning); Tunxis Community College (student learning, assessment, career, general education)
  • EDI's eNVQ ePortfolio Solution:  Weyac, Wiltshire College (assessment, student learning, career) 
  • eFolio: Foothill College (assessment, student learning, career); Metropolitan State University (multiple uses); Riverland Community College (student learning); San Francisco State University (multiple uses depending on department); University of Texas Medical Branch--Graduate Nursing program and School of Health Professions (student learning, assessment)
  • Epsilen: Queensborough Community College/CUNY (interdisciplinary learning community)
  • Google: Bucks New University (course portfolios, assessment, student learning, education); Foothill College (assessment, student learning, career); Northern Illinois University Composition Program (were using SeaMonkey now using Google Sites, used for: curriculum, reflection, assessment, and more)University of Puerto Rico College of Education, Rio Piedras Campus (assessment, student learning); University of Washington Bothell (general education, degree, academic program self-assessment)
  • Googlios: Portland Community College--in pilot stage (assessment, learning, professional development)
  • Live Text:  Arnold and Marie Schwartz College of Pharmacy and Health Sciences, Long Island University (self and faculty assessment)
  • Mahara: Auckland University of Technology (assessment, professional placement)Cargl-Bosch-Schule, Heidelberg ; Coe College Department of Rhetoric (course portfolios, assessment, student learning); Pace University (student learning, learning outcomes assessment, student and career development and tenure and promotion)Plymouth State University (assessment and career); TAFE NSW, Western Sydney Institute--using Mahara hosted on Foliospaces (course portfolio and RPL)
  • Quals Direct: East Riding College, Care Consortium(course portfolios, assessment, student learning); Craven College - Tyro Training (NVQ portfolios); City College Norwich (WBL portfolios)Bournemouth and Poole College--HCE (course portfolios)
  • Sakai/OSP: Rutgers University (student learning); University of Delaware/Office of Educational Assessment (teaching, learning, assessment); Virginia Tech (integrative learning, reflection, assessment, career development, student learning)
  • Symplicity/Reflection: Northwestern University/University Career Services (integrative learning, career)
  • Task Stream: Linfield College (assessment); St. Joseph College School of Education (program evaluation)
  • TK20: Cuyahoga Community College (integrative learning, career, assessment); Wright State University College of Education and Human Services (NCATE) 
  • Weebly: Salt Lake Community College (general education, integrative learning, assessment, career, transfer, student learning)
  • WordPress: CSU Monterey Bay University of Oregon (integrative learning, showcase)
  • Yola: Salt Lake Community College (general education, integrative learning, assessment, career, transfer, student learning)
  • Self-developed system: Carlow College (assessment, showcase, career); University of Denver/Center for Teaching and Learning (personal and topic-based portfolios, course management)


V. Key Criteria Cited By Schools In Considering Systems/Platforms

**Please note this is not a comprehensive study. These results are based on a self-reported survey to the ePAC Community. This list will be updated periodically. (Last update: 7/6/2012)


  • Ease of use (and user friendly)
  • Portability
  • Cost
  • Flexibility
  • Multi-use across departments (also cited as multipurpose)
  • Multimedia support
  • User-centered
  • No cost to students
  • Support
  • Accessibility
  • Social networking features
  • Aesthetics (look and feel)
  • Open source
  • Elements that train students to use ePortfolio
  • Accreditation
  • Recommended by someone (Ed Tech department, another institution)
  • Ability to support/connect to rubrics
  • Ability to aggregate and disaggregate data
  • Mechanism for feedback from instructors (with or without rubrics)
  • Summary data
  • Emphasis on showcase portfolios
  • Ability to facilitate student learning and assessment
  • Integration with current campus technologies
  • Vendor reliability
  • Ability to customize
  • Ability to access after graduation
  • Security
  • Privacy
  • Student ownership
  • Durability over time 
  • Privacy/password protected
  • Hours, time, and cost to implement
  • Same system across a university system
  • No criteria: it was the default system connected to the course management system or learning management system (CMS/LMS)
  • Couldn't find a product that did what the school wanted (so built their own)


VI. Most Important System Elements Cited By Schools

**Please note this is not a comprehensive study. These results are based on a self-reported survey to the ePAC Community. This list will be updated periodically. (Last update: 7/6/2012)

  • Creativity
  • Customizability
  • Ease of use
  • Snapshot of student learning (process, not product)
  • Insistence on reflection
  • Flexibility
  • Multimedia
  • Assessment
  • Locally installed & supported
  • Integration with CMS/LMS
  • Ability to turn a student ePortfolio into a Professional ePortfolio 
  • Quantitative reporting
  • Storage Capacity
  • Showcase portfolios
  • Social Networking
  • Security
  • Curriculum
  • Building on established systems
  • Ability to be used by all departments/programs 
  • Usability
  • Aesthetics
  • Technical support
  • Archiving portfolios for accreditation
  • Tiered access
  • Ability to use current rubrics 
  • Evaluation & feedback
  • Reflection
  • Student Ownership/Autonomy
  • Ability to change as standards change
  • Ability to train students quickly
  • Staff/Faculty needs


VII. Resources


2009.10.15 - Regional Support Centre West Midlands - Kevin Brace's blog: ePortfolio evaluation survey



Evaluation of E-Portfolio Software

Klaus Himpsl, Peter Baumgartner, pp. 16-22

International Journal: Emerging Technologies in Learning (IJET), Vol. 4 (1), 2009




E-Portfolios are a new type of software and it is still relatively vague to determine, which functions are obligatory – that is which functions constitute characteristic features – and which functions are just optional (“nice to have“). This article describes the concept and the preliminary results of a research project which was conducted to evaluate E-Portfolio software, and aims at providing decision guidance for implementing E-Portfolios in higher education - first and foremost from the pedagogical perspective. Which recommendations can be made to an institution which now wants to implement electronic portfolios with a certain objective?


The Clever Sheep:  15 Efficient ePortfolio Tools



Helen Barrett's Categories of ePortfolio Tools:


and relevant blog posting: 



EIfEL ePortfolio Solutions Center



EduTools ePortfolio Review (also includes criteria for evaluation ePortfolio tools)



Richardson, HC and Ward, R. (2005) Developing and Implementing a Methodology for Reviewing E-portfolio Products: version 1.0[Online] JISC. Available from: http://www.jisc.ac.uk/uploaded_documents/epfr.doc [accessed 14.11.06]

http://personaldevelopmentplanning.blogspot.com/2006/11/how-good-are-free-e-portfolio-solutions.html [accessed 2009.01.16]


Sweat-Guy, R. & N.A. Buzzetto-More. (2007). A Comparative Analysis of Common E-Portfolio Features and Available Platforms.  In Proceedings of the 2007 Informing Science and Information Technology Conference, Ljubljana, Slovenia, June 22-25, 2007.

http://proceedings.informingscience.org/InSITE2007/IISITv4p327-342Guy255.pdf [accessed 2009.01.16]


Jamin Lietze is a Primary (Elementary) School Teacher in New Zealand.  Here he describes his critieria and process for selecting an ePortfolio tool for his school and students.




2008.12 - Choosing ePortfolio Software

From Steve Ehrmann as cited in the TLT Group's recent TGIF (TLT Group Information Forum) Year 3 Issue #7 email:


I'm in Australia at the ascilite conference. Lots of interesting conversation about ePortfolios, a hot topic here.

I was asked for my thoughts about how to choose a software package. I think it's a mistake for institutions to assume that a) one software approach will serve all ePortfolio uses, or b) that choosing software is the place for institutions to start. But suppose we're talking about just one institutionalized use of ePortfolios. How should one choose the software?


I have one thought to add to the discussion. It begins with a story from 20+ years ago. (That figure is significant, as you'll see.) Around 1985, Prof. Greg Crane and his colleagues from Harvard visited me at the Annenberg/CPB Project, seeking funding for a project to be called "Perseus," a resource for the study of classical Greece from Homer through Alexander the Great. It would include a vast repository of texts, photographs, archaeological documents, and educational material.


Greg, a brand new assistant professor, said something in that first conversation that I've always remembered. "If classics professors see Perseus and don't have faith it will be around for 20 years, they will never use it." We agreed that that would be one of the design principles of the project. Because no one could anticipate changes in operating systems, one corollary of the principle was, "The architecture of Perseus ought to enable one to write a program to translate the whole thing, relatively automatically, into a different form that would run in a different operating environment."


That threshold was a tight constraint. Within two years several staff, including one co-PI, had left because several ambitious features of Perseus wouldn't fit it.


Subsequent research revealed that rewriting educational courseware for a new operating environment was expensive (e.g., writing a Windows version of software that, like Perseus, had been originally written for a Macintosh). the cost of 'porting' to a new environment could easily equal, or exceed, the original development costs. When it came time to port Perseus twice, to the Web and to Windows, the Macintosh version had cost around $3 million. But porting it twice cost only about $50,000.


Here's Perseus, 23 years old, and still rowing upstream.


So let's return to ePortfolios. It can easily take 5-10 years to institutionalize the reorganization of academic work. It's unlikely that the software one adopts today will still be in use by the end of that period, let alone later. So let's adopt a criterion for system selection: the software should allow one to either (a) export the whole content -- artifacts, reflections, assessments, and relationships -- into a standards-based file that could be uploaded into a different system, or (b) to write a software program that would automatically create such a portable file later on.


What do you think? Write me at ehrmann@tltgroup.org.

(For information on how to subscribe to these weekly mailings, please visit http://www.tltgroup.org/TGIF_subscribe.htm)


We can always use more volunteers and if you would be interested in helping us out with this, please contact Helen.


Comments (0)

You don't have permission to comment on this page.