Explain the dirty details only when necessary. The old adage “people remember the first thing you say and the last thing you say” is very true in this current generation of electronic portfolio implementations. This is such a new concept for many that program coordinators and project managers need to watch their words – focusing on the enduring processes and products of creating electronic portfolios specific to the institution. It is important to know when to (and when not to) indulge in the minutia of little known features, exceptional scenarios, and the daydreams of tomorrow. When starting a new implementation, it is critical that as many students as possible get the clearest amount of information in the clearest possible manner. Then use the detail-oriented indulgences to attract, entice, and whet the appetite of the exceptional or unique user needs.

Take incremental steps to help faculty adopt. Focus all efforts for faculty development on core skills. Unlike course management systems where the faculty member does a significant amount of building of the course, the electronic portfolio experience for the faculty member is geared toward reviewing portfolios and manipulating documents. Successful faculty reviewers do not necessarily have to build an electronic portfolio in order to evaluate one; however, the act of building could strengthen their act of reviewing. Ultimately, faculty who are knowledgeable about building an electronic portfolio will be able help students do the same (read: that is an entire article unto itself). Design faculty support structures to teach skills that increase productivity when manipulating documents and how to use the electronic portfolio from a mechanics perspective. Without making the mouse-and-click skills too redundant, electronic portfolio support teams would emphasize managing and navigating portfolios, handling and editing portfolio owner documents, and providing numeric and narrative feedback. Faculty will gravitate to the portfolio and personalize it when they see the purpose of it in their course, the value of it in programs they advise, and the ease of its use for both students and themselves. The overall emphasis should initially be on the mechanisms of faculty productivity.

Have the same simple answer for multiple simple questions. The myriad of questions posed by student portfolio owners can often cause decision makers to feel like 15 processes (or forms or rules or learning objects or rules, whatever) are required for 15 different frequently asked questions. The creation of a matrix of suggested actions can help answer the multitude of questions. Some of those questions may include the following. What should every freshman, sophomore, junior, and senior have in their portfolio? What should I be reflecting on and when? What are the required assignments? What must I have in my portfolio before student teaching? Helpful examples can be found in The Learning Portfolio by John Zubbiazareta.

Keep the templates simple. The three generations of the electronic portfolio template at PSU is motivated by two guiding principles – simplicity and longevity. The templates need to be simple so students can answer their own questions, such as: Where do put my artifacts? Where does the reflection go? Who can see my portfolio? The templates need to have the longevity to last throughout the entire academic program. To achieve longevity PSU has chosen to build the template to mirror the Interstate New Teachers Assessment Consortium (INTASC) standards. These standards are a broad representation of the act of teaching. The application of the standards helps to answer the purposeful question of the portfolio. And, the standards can be interwoven with virtually any other professional standards for accountability purposes. This decision was made because Plymouth State desires to create the electronic portfolio for program level purposes not course specific purposes.

Know why the specific electronic portfolio tool was chosen and use it for that. In early 2003, the market for portfolio vendors was not as diverse as early 2006, yet Plymouth State University believed and still believes it chose iWebfolio for the right reasons. First, the tool needed to have reflection capabilities at the portfolio and artifact level. Second, the tool needed to have the capability to create rubrics and other feedback systems. Third, the tool needed to have multi-level roles for instructional and administrative purposes. Finally, the tool needed to have current and potential integration points specific to SCT-Banner, Luminus, and other campus SIS components. Developing a short list of preferred functionality ensures focus and practicality when evaluating products.

Know the ramifications of choosing specific populations. The rationale for starting with first-year students was supported by a few keys ideas. First, if we chose upperclassmen as a starting point, the knowledge base would continually regenerate every year or two, which was too rapid. In other words, we did not want teach our students the tools just in time for graduation. Second, more year-to-year implementation changes could be seen over a four-year period. Third, four years of portfolio growth would be completed just in time for the next accreditation visit. More departments on campus are seeking the same type of program data, yet growth to other programs and majors has been stalled because the institutional capacity to support the electronic portfolio initiative is maximized.

More thoughts on lesser now elements of an electronic portfolio project...

Draw a parallel to paper. The decision to implement an electronic portfolio at Plymouth State University, necessitated a secondary decision, should it be mandatory? The decision was yes – make it mandatory. The previous generation of paper-based portfolios was also mandatory. Decisions like these, to make things mandatory, often pressure students to question the decision. After all, rules are made to be broken. Be ready for opponents by creating learning objects that draw a parallel between the cost, content, flexibility, ubiquity, portability, and replication of an electronic portfolio.