ERIC EJ1107617: Developing a Model for ePortfolio Design: A Studio Approach

2012·1 MB·English

by  ERIC

International Journal of ePortfolio 2012, Volume 2, Number 2, 163-172

http://www.theijep.com ISSN 2157-622X

Developing a Model for ePortfolio Design: A Studio Approach

Russell Carpenter and Shawn Apostel June Overton Hyndman
Eastern Kentucky University Georgetown College

After developing and testing a model for integrative collaboration at Eastern Kentucky University’s
Noel Studio for Academic Creativity, we offer results that highlight the potential for peer review to
significantly and positively impact the ePortfolio design process for students. The results of this
classroom/studio collaboration suggest that students who participated in consultations at the Noel
Studio were more successful in the design of their ePortfolios than students who did not. While the
results have proven promising for sustained collaboration between the multiliteracy center and the
ePortfolio course highlighted in this research report, the proposed collaborative model is highly
replicable across many institutions.

This research report situates the ePortfolio within The collaborative project detailed in this research report
the context of a new, integrated space at Eastern involves the Noel Studio working alongside education
Kentucky University (EKU): the Noel Studio for students and faculty from the Department of
Academic Creativity. Within this new space, we have Curriculum and Instruction at EKU. The Noel Studio
the unique opportunity to explore the ePortfolio as serves as a neutral space where these students can
valuable in an integrative pedagogy that brings together discuss multimodal components of their ePortfolios. At
students, professors, and Noel Studio staff for a hands- different stages of this process, students were prompted
on learning experience. As a multiliteracy center, this to design videos and slideshows that they would then
space and mission appreciate the intersections and add to their ePortfolio. In this research report, we
overlaps of research, writing, oral communication, and overview a collaborative model for peer review piloted
multimodal composition. Sheridan (2010) provided an in the Noel Studio, which is replicable for other writing,
introduction to the role of multiliteracy centers: communication, and multiliteracy centers.
The research discussed in this report serves as a
A multiliteracy center can be both a part of the catalyst for future collaboration. Perhaps most
infrastructure that supports new media composing importantly, this article advocates for the multiliteracy
and a space where students critically reflect on and center—in an integrative collaboration with faculty and
learn to exploit the infrastructural resources students—as a productive space where students receive
available to them. It can facilitate a professionally objective feedback on their ePortfolios. Peer review, in
responsible approach to functional computer this case, serves as a platform for productive
literacy. In short, it can be a site that welcomes the conversation that helps combine and isolate important
author as producer. (p. 81) rhetorical elements. Furthermore, the integrative nature
of the 21st century learning space—the multiliteracy
In this research report, the authors, comprised of the center—allows students to see how rhetorical
Noel Studio Director, Noel Studio Communication conventions are repurposed or refashioned in
Coordinator, and education professor as co-designers of ePortfolios. Through this research, we also attempt to
the collaboration outlined here, suggest that ePortfolios address a gap in existing scholarship: the place of the
provide opportunities for students to integrate written, multiliteracy center in the design process of ePortfolios.
oral, visual, electronic, and nonverbal communication.
Because previous research does not substantially Literature Review
address the role of peer review within the ePortfolio-
design process, the research reported here serves as a While discussions of the importance of
starting point for future studies while shedding light on collaboration on the writing of ePortfolios abound,
the potential for multiliteracy spaces like the Noel there is also a need for peer review of the design,
Studio to support the design of projects that require layout, and organization of ePortfolios. For example,
students to develop complex communication skills. Zalatan (2001) discussed faculty coaching and
The Noel Studio opened in September 2010 as an technology training students received as part of the
integrated space dedicated to the development of ePortfolio assignment; however, while faculty coached
effective communicators. As such, the space includes the writing in the ePortfolio and technology staff
areas where students can project their visual or addressed the ability to create the digital document,
multimodal compositions, practice presentations using there is no indication that design choices, organization,
video equipment, or collaborate with group members in or peer evaluations were discussed as students modified
open spaces with writable walls and flexible seating. the standard format offered to them in the class. And
Carpenter, Apostel, and Hyndman Developing a Model for ePortfolio Design 164

while Peet et al. (2011) encouraged students “to seek
feedback on the completed [ePortfolio] from a variety And while faculty feedback is important, our research
of people” (p. 17), there is also a need to obtain suggests that group, peer feedback led by a trained
feedback during the design process. Moreover, even consultant greatly improved the overall scores of the
considering Arola’s (2010) lament of web-design finished product.
templates and the lack of design options to those who By incorporating ePortfolios in their consultations,
use such software, there is still “a rhetoric of the post” writing and communication centers can begin to
(p. 12), given that the pictures, colors, and layout of text address the needs of the academic community as well
still contain information that can work with, or against, as their students (Click & Magruder, 2004). Pemberton
the purposes of the ePortfolio composer. Those who do (2003) noted that although writing centers
have full access to appropriate software or coding
classes also have difficult design choices to make have been influenced by advances in computer
depending upon the purpose of their ePortfolios. These technology . . . most of the interactions between
choices tend to be made not by rhetorical standards but students and tutors still center on the handwritten
by ability as students experiment more with design or printed texts that are placed on the table
when they are more comfortable with the technology. between them or, perhaps, shared in a word-
While analyzing the ePortfolios of a class, Springfield processed file. (p. 9)
(2001) found that “[t]he level of Web design ranged
from very basic (those who just wanted something on- As college classes utilize more forms of communication
line) to overly complicated (those who wanted to try as in assignments (i.e., web-based portfolios and videos),
much ‘neat stuff’ as possible) to exquisite (generally the versatility to break out of the traditional structure
artists and computer science majors or enthusiasts)” (p. outlined by Pemberton becomes imperative for writing
56). While the level of technological savvy students centers. Indeed, Trimbur (2000) noted “writing centers
acquire can help them shape more complex ePortfolios, will more and more define themselves as multiliteracy
there is still a need for a discussion about design centers” (p. 29-30). The change from text-based to
choices, organization, and photo selections as they more visual-based forms of composition requires
pertain to the ethos of the ePortfolio. Barrett (2001) said centers to take a careful look at the way in which a
to consultant discusses projects with students. Scholars
have discussed the impact of multimodality on the 21st
[e]valuate the portfolio’s effectiveness in light of century writing center (e.g., Griffin, 2007; Sheridan,
its purpose and the assessment context. In an 2010) and the need to address multimodality in the
environment of continuous improvement, a classroom (e.g., Kress & van Leeuwen, 1996; Selfe,
portfolio should be viewed as an ongoing learning 2004), yet the best practices for conducting
tool, and its effectiveness should be reviewed consultations involving these complex compositions
regularly to be sure that it meets the goals set. (p. remain largely under published. A notable exemption
115) involved Clemson’s Class of ’41 Studio for Student
Communication, which uses a rhetorical-based
We suggest consultations as a way to provide a more approach (Fishman, 2010); however, no rubric or list of
level playing field for students who come to class with questions for consultants to utilize during their sessions
a wide range of technical abilities. was provided. The rubric we adapted from Metros and
Incorporating peer-review and group consultations Dehoney (2006) attempts to answer Yancey’s (2001b)
in a studio, communication, or writing center call to “think rhetorically . . . develop some key (well
atmosphere allows students to receive feedback from defined) terms that you can associate with your model
multiple sources without incorporating faculty time. of an ePortfolio, and use them consistently” while the
This approach is how the Noel Studio answers the peer review portion makes an effort to fulfill the call for
questions asked by Yancey (2001a): a “collaborative process of development” (p. 87). As
Yancey said, “students may be our best collaborators”
In some situations, faculty clearly will review (2001b, p. 87).
electronic portfolios: during the class in the case Dixon and Smith (2007) argued that productive
of classroom portfolios, for example. But will interactivity with audiences who actively influence
portfolios be reviewed before they are submitted? process, content, and outcomes displaces classroom
Will others review them? Or will they be hierarchies and the passive absorption of predetermined
reviewed only once? . . . Faculty are likely to material. As we argue in this research report, objective
generate these kinds of questions, questions that peer-to-peer review outside of the classroom greatly
need at least tentative answers before a plan is enhances the ePortfolio design experience for students.
implemented. (p. 27) During consultations, students discuss important topics
Carpenter, Apostel, and Hyndman Developing a Model for ePortfolio Design 165

such as identity and ownership. The peer-review ePortfolios but were assessed through TaskStream.
process allowed students to refine their identity as Initially, TaskStream ePortfolios were little more than
future teachers through their design decisions. As their 2000 FrontPage counterparts, containing basic
Dixon and Smith (2007) suggested, the meta-reflective assignments with accompanying reflective statements
process of crafting, rehearsing, and presenting an and indications of EKU Teacher Standards covered by
ePortfolio persona requires the student to project the each assignment as marked by students.
self into a digital environment through representative From 2008 to present, professors in the foundation
words, visuals, media, links, etc., thereby necessitating course in which students started their ePortfolios began
a certain degree of self-estrangement. Goffman (1959) to explore methods to help students better understand
suggested the performative nature of presentations of the reflective process and to write more advanced
the self. As Ramírez (2011) argued, electronic reflections to accompany assignments. Additionally,
performance in ePortfolio design closely resembles live students were expected to provide a visual for each
theatrical performance. The design choices made in assignment page. Initially, the visual was clip art
ePortfolios create presentations of the self, each provided by TaskStream. Later, students created visuals
student’s evolving online professional persona and part using their own photography and art, which could be
of his or her identity formation. Within the frames of manipulated through programs such as PowerPoint and
the ePortfolio, the student’s online persona and ethos as websites such as Picnik (http://www.picnik.com/).
an educator are constantly redefined and reinscribed Instead of writing a letter to the reviewer of the
through the rhetorical decisions the student makes. As portfolio, students were expected to create videos with
Dixon and Smith (2007) explained, personas are honed programs such as Windows MovieMaker and websites
like characters for the new theatrical confessional box, such as Animoto (http://animoto.com/). These changes
where, like postmodern performance artists, individuals in visual expectations for students allowed for
explore their autobiographies and enact intimate expressive visual and aural elements in ePortfolio
dialogues with their inner selves (p. 3-4). Reflecting, development (FitzPatrick & Spiller, 2010).
rehearsing, and presenting the self through the Professors involved in ePortfolio development at
ePortfolio medium requires one distinctive element EKU were pleased with the metamorphosis of the
crucial to performance: audience. Our research seeks to ePortfolio, ever challenging students to be more
understand the way peer review in a studio setting creative, introspective, and technologically adept. But
facilitates audience awareness of design choices among faculty had hit a wall. They were teacher educators with
students made in ePortfolios by asking the following basic technology skills. The 2010-11 academic year
questions: presented EKU teacher educators with the opportunity
to collaborate with the new Noel Studio, an emerging
• What impact does collaboration with multiliteracy center. In the paragraphs that follow, we
communication consultants have on the design offer an overview of the model employed within this
of ePortfolios? collaboration between ePortfolio students and the Noel
• Can a studio complement the work taking Studio. Interestingly, Peet et al. (2011) explained, “It is
place in a classroom environment? not yet clear, for example, what kinds of integrative
• How might peer review embrace the learning experiences lead students to connect, integrate,
performative role of multimodal and synthesize their learning, or how ePortfolios can be
communication in ePortfolio design? used to facilitate that process” (p. 11). The model and
discussion that follow extend Peet et al.’s (2011)
History and Justification for a Collaborative Model research, while attempting to place it into context
within our own research.
The College of Education at EKU instituted
portfolios in 1992 (Hyndman & Hyndman, 2005). The A Studio Model for Integrative Learning with
paper portfolio of the 1990s was standards-based, using ePortfolios
the EKU Teacher Standards. During fall term 2000,
EKU College of Education undergraduates began Metros (2008) explained that students lack visual
creating ePortfolios using FrontPage. By July of 2004, acuity. Students, as Metros argued, “dismiss imagery as
1,600 EKU ePortfolios were online. mere decoration” (p. 105). We view this lack in visual
In 2008, in preparation for an upcoming National literacy as problematic for ePortfolio designers and
Council for Accreditation of Teacher Education seek to develop students who understand the
(NCATE) visit, the college moved ePortfolio importance of evaluating visual information, especially
development into a commercial system, TaskStream. in relation to writing and research. Responding to
Beginning in fall 2009, EKU College of Education Metros, we attempt to help students “identify,
undergraduate students not only developed TaskStream understand, and critically analyze visual representations
Carpenter, Apostel, and Hyndman Developing a Model for ePortfolio Design 166

in a larger context” (2008, p. 105). The model offered and the design of the consultations in steps
below presents one perspective on the integrative six and seven.
learning experiences from this collaboration within the 5. Train Noel Studio Consultants: The Noel
Noel Studio, along with the pedagogical approach Studio team, in collaboration with the course
employed in each stage (see Figure 1). The authors professor, facilitated training for consultants
argue that this integrative collaborative model had a that focused on elements of design, group
major impact in the results suggested in this project and dynamics, and digital presentation and
is replicable in a wide variety of institutional settings. ethos. ePortfolio trainings consisted of four
Following is a description of each stage: one-hour sessions during the first four weeks
of the semester and focused on exploring the
1. Assignment: In the initial stages of the ePortfolio system, TaskStream, rhetorical
ePortfolio design, the education professor conventions for discussing ePortfolio
instructed students to develop an introductory elements, effective design strategies, and
video with a target audience of parents, specific training in small-group
teachers, principals, and/or future students. communication and group dynamics.
The video would not be a representation of the 6. Video Consultation Small Groups: Students
student now but the teacher he/she is visited the Noel Studio in small groups of
committed to developing. Creation of the four or five and met with a consultant to
video was a multi-layered process requiring discuss options for video organization and
technological skills as well as the initial design. These consultations focused
development of a teacher identity. specifically on videos that would later
2. Noel Studio Visits Class: The Noel Studio become components of the ePortfolio.
Director visited all 145 education students in Consultants encouraged students to present
the lecture space to provide an overview of the ideas to each other while offering objective
collaboration; services provided by the Noel feedback.
Studio, best practices for consultations, and 7. ePortfolio Consultation Small Groups:
communication-design resources offered. Students visited the Noel Studio four weeks
3. Noel Studio Visits Groups: The Noel Studio later again in small groups with completed
Director visited the same 145 students but in drafts of their ePortfolios. The second
groups of 20 in the education technology lab consultation for ePortfolio students focused
space to provide an introduction to ePortfolios on the ePortfolio as a piece of multimodal
and to determine a sense for where students communication. Again in small groups of
were in the invention process. Sessions four or five, consultants and students
focused on generating ideas and excitement for discussed how visual and verbal intersect
ePortfolios, especially the development of and complement one another, audience, and
introductory videos, which would play an technological sophistication. Rhetorical
important role in conveying developing elements were also key to the second small-
teacher identity. group consultation, as students were refining
4. Groups Attend Noel Studio Orientation: The their educator personae through multiple
Noel Studio Director, along with the modes.
education professor, assembled each 8. Researchers Evaluate ePortfolios: At the
group—approximately 20 students—in the conclusion of the pilot, the researchers—
Noel Studio, a collaborative and technology- including the Noel Studio Director, Noel
rich space located in the Crabbe Library. Studio Communication Coordinator, and
Orientations focused on rhetorical and education professor—began meeting weekly
design elements involved in ePortfolios and to evaluate data, including the ePortfolios,
drew from Williams’ (1994) CRAP consultant surveys, and consultation videos.
principles from the Non-Designers Design The researchers calibrated their scores,
Book, Gestalt principles as outlined by Horn according to the rubric (see Figure 2), which
(1998) in Visual Language, and cognate was adapted from Metros and Dehoney
strategies as outlined by Kostelnick and (2006), provided to students and consultants,
Roberts (1997) in Designing Visual and engaged in multiple group scoring
Language. These orientations also allowed sessions.
students to discuss their ideas for ePortfolio
design in small groups, paralleling the As outlined above, we argue that a number of
training received by consultants in step five characteristics available in this collaborative model
Carpenter, Apostel, and Hyndman Developing a Model for ePortfolio Design 167

Figure 1
Model of Noel Studio Integrative Collaboration

Figure 2
Adapted Noel Studio Rubric
Carpenter, Apostel, and Hyndman Developing a Model for ePortfolio Design 168

contributed to its richness and potential for success. once during the first half of the semester during the
First, students were able to see ePortfolio design as a invention stages and once during the second half of the
process through the collection of a variety of semester during the final revision process to discuss
educational experiences communicated in multiple elements of their ePortfolios, including videos, static
modes: written, visual, oral, and multimodal images, text, and sound. Other students chose not to use
experiences. Moreover, the process-oriented nature of the Noel Studio during their ePortfolio and video
the ePortfolio collaboration encouraged students to development.
collect and communicate a range of experiences, which Evaluators reviewed and discussed five ePortfolio
encouraged a depth of context in the ePortfolios beyond samples from a previous semester as part of the
the use of images that are merely aesthetically pleasing norming process, calibrating each category of the
in favor of images that were rhetorically effective. The rubric. At the conclusion of the study, eight students
process encouraged students to delay evaluation of the were randomly selected from the nineteen of those who
ePortfolios until the components were in place to view came to the Noel Studio twice and eight students were
it as the sum of its component parts. With an emphasis selected from the twenty-nine who did not use the Noel
on collaboration and process, the teaching spaces Studio at all. The ePortfolios were evaluated based on
involved in the project became student-centered. the rubric provided to the students and Noel Studio
Control shifted to the students engaged in ongoing consultants—discussed in detail below (see Figure 2).
design. The collaboration encouraged students to grow The rubric uses seven dimensions: concept originality,
over the course of the semester gradually and aesthetic quality, digital presentation, writing,
incrementally through several contacts with the Noel formatting, sources/citations, and accessibility. The
Studio during the semester, especially in the early researchers viewed the ePortfolios together via a large
weeks, rather than attempting to learn effective design screen but kept their evaluations private until the end of
techniques at the end of the semester when such the evaluation process. ePortfolios created without
strategies could no longer be implemented in the final collaboration in the Noel Studio and those created with
product. The approach, as described above, echoes collaboration in the Noel Studio were shown randomly
Hamp-Lyons and Condon’s (2000) earlier work on with researchers not knowing which group each
portfolio assessment when they explained that ePortfolio was in. Additionally, researchers scored
independently and scores were averaged afterward.
[p]ortfolio-based assessment, with its combination Evaluators’ ratings of the ePortfolios were found to
of performance assessment and delayed evaluation, have an acceptable inter-rater reliability (average
gives learners the means of assuming responsibility measures ICC = .90).
for their learning, lets teachers become genuine
mentors for learners, and creates a time period, a Limitations
space, within which learning takes place. (p. 100)
One limitation of this study is self-selection bias.
Furthermore, the collaborative model outlined here Students either took advantage of the Noel Studio
extends Kimball’s (2002) process: “To ensure that your consultations or they chose not to visit. It is
web portfolio is as polished as possible, regularly go acknowledged that students who visited for feedback
back and assess how your finished product compares to may be more conscientious communicators and their
the standards by which it will be judged—then work to ePortfolios would be of higher quality. However, one
make the two match” (p. 129). In the pages that follow, could also argue that many students who use the Noel
we discuss our approach to assessing ePortfolios and Studio experience communication anxiety and thus use
reflect on our observations. the additional feedback to build confidence in their
communication products. We suggest that the results of
Method this pilot study are more indicative of the classroom-
Noel Studio relationship because students volunteered
Our participants include undergraduate sophomore to visit for consultations.
and junior students enrolled in the EDF 203 course in
the Curriculum and Instruction department within the Results
College of Education at EKU taught by Dr. June
Hyndman. All 145 students are education majors in The average rating for those participating in two
varying tracks, but all students designed the ePortfolio Noel Studio consultations (M = 133.2) was found to be
with the intention to communicate an educational ethos significantly higher than those who did not participate
to potential employers. While all students participated in a Noel Studio consultation (M = 32.3; t(14) = 2.24, p
in steps one through four in the model above (see < .05). As the research suggests, students who
Figure 1), some students visited the Noel Studio twice, collaborated with their peer group and consultants in
Carpenter, Apostel, and Hyndman Developing a Model for ePortfolio Design 169

the Noel Studio scored 25% higher using the rubric The early success of the research project and
than those who did not collaborate. The rubric (see collaborative relationship fostered by integrating the
Figure 2) served as the basis for conversations between Noel Studio into the EDF 203 ePortfolio-design process
students and consultants. is suggestive of the potential for peer-to-peer feedback
traditionally reserved for print-based texts to also
Discussion and Implications enhance students’ ability to make rhetorically effective
design decisions that integrate written, oral, visual,
While the results suggest value in the Noel Studio- nonverbal, electronic, and aural communication
classroom collaboration in the design of ePortfolios, the elements in ways that show an understanding of how
study identifies valuable areas for reflection as well. In these areas interact and complement one another.
addition to the results of the quantitative study, the Rather than making decisions for purely aesthetic
authors offer perspective on both the Noel Studio and reasons, or based on convenience, consultations in the
classroom sides that should guide the design of future Noel Studio created a supportive physical and
collaborations. intellectual space where students, consultants, and at
times the professor met to collaborate and discuss
Noel Studio Reflection from the Study strengths and shortcomings of their design process. We
began the collaborative process understanding the value
Barab, Barnett, and Squire (2002) stated that added by objective peer-to-peer student feedback on
students’ portfolios serve five critical functions: written communication products. However, we also
evidence of teacher readiness; evidence of teacher realized that there was similar potential for peer-to-peer
potential; a model of best assessment practices; an feedback on texts that are not produced on the printed
opportunity for reflection on areas of strength and page. This move would prove valuable as the Noel
growth required; and a vehicle for personal and Studio grew into its space and role on campus, while
professional growth. The students who scored the serving a committed role by providing a space where
highest according to the rubric used in this study had a students could receive feedback on their ePortfolios
highly original concept—often a theme that where no feedback outside of class was available
communicated their ethos as teachers—carried before. Consultations provided students with the
throughout the ePortfolio. The two most successful opportunity to explore the performative nature of
ePortfolios included visual elements that created energy ePortfolios, including the design process. That is, they
around teaching. Students communicated who they are began to isolate and combine communication modes
as teachers through static images and video. while seeing their work as necessarily rhetorical and the
Importantly, though, they employed themes such as enhanced or diminished ethos as a critical piece of their
hands-on learning, creativity, and the use of technology consultations. While the feedback received in class was
to help viewers envision them as future teachers. valuable, there were not opportunities for students to
Students who scored highly wrote concisely for web explore or express in any in-depth way the rhetorical
readers. They also conveyed clear audience awareness nature of their design decisions, whereas in the Noel
through word choice, sentence length, tone, and Studio consultants are trained and prepared to discuss
consistent formatting. these elements with students.
Students who visited the Noel Studio twice
exhibited strong information literacy skills, using full Teacher Educator Reflection from the Study
documentation with visuals, quotes, and videos. These
students researched resources thoroughly and cited Shulman (1998) likened teaching to dry ice at room
them correctly. The rubric facilitated a rather complex temperature. It evaporates and leaves no visible trace.
conversation about the rhetorical nature of visuals and This study reveals that ePortfolios can make explicit the
design decisions in general. Consultants were not preconceived notions of identity as a teacher and
education majors, and students were not graphic promote the re-examination of underlying beliefs and
designers accustomed to composing texts in electronic values in light of practical experience and reflection,
environments. While the training involved in this and thus serve as bases for change and improvement.
collaboration certainly informed students’ feedback, As Mitchell et al. (2010) argued, the ePortfolio research
this process has also impacted positively how process is cross-disciplinary. The integrative
ePortfolio design will be taught from the professor’s collaboration discussed in this research report is also
perspective, encouraging the College of Education to necessarily cross-disciplinary. Thus, it was important to
engage the rhetorically significant appeal that ground consultations at least initially as a starting point
multiliteracy scholars call “ethos” (Carpenter & for both sides. The rubric used in this study served as
Apostel, 2012) and educators call “teacher identity” the basis for conversations between students and
(Shulman, 1998). consultants. The rubric, in this case, facilitated a rather
Carpenter, Apostel, and Hyndman Developing a Model for ePortfolio Design 170

complex conversation about the rhetorical nature of unparalleled potential for complementary feedback that
visuals and design decisions in general. While the extends instruction provided by the course instructor.
training involved in this collaboration certainly ePortfolios provide the ideal context for
informed students’ feedback, this process has also discussions about multimodal communication and the
impacted positively how ePortfolio design will be rhetorical nature of these texts. The integration of time
taught from the professor’s perspective. for students to reflect critically on their practices in a
Collaboration with the Noel Studio illuminated supportive, collaborative space like the Noel Studio
pedagogical possibilities for instruction in the increases opportunities for students to receive focused,
classroom far beyond and more in depth than quality, and objective feedback from students outside of
technological literacy with the ePortfolio system. the classroom. The feedback, in turn, informs teaching
Foremost, the collaboration highlighted the need for practices in the classroom, also providing the professor
students to receive additional feedback and guidance with the chance to reflect on current practices for
on text alignment, consistency, and contrast. ePortfolio design. However, since reflection is not a
Furthermore, the orientations held within the Noel goal in itself, but is rather intended to stimulate teachers
Studio during the early stages of the collaboration to change and improve, further research should focus
foregrounded the need for students to think critically on examples of how the reflective process has changed
and creatively about how they integrate color, various aspects of their teaching.
photographs, and illustrations into their ePortfolios Students, in their consultations, reflected on
and how these choices had significant implications design choices employed in their ePortfolio.
about how potential employers would perceive them Consultations focused on reflective practices that took
as emerging professionals and teachers. students outside of the context of the course and
consultation and required that they put themselves in
Conclusion the role of the teacher. Thus, students gained
strategies for ePortfolio design that will benefit them
Although this collaboration involves students in long after they leave this course. As part of the
education, the model described here is replicable across reflection process, we learned that while the design of
the disciplines. More specifically, this model outlines a the rubric used in consultations and for evaluating
process whereby ePortfolio students receive feedback ePortfolios generated useful feedback and productive
and interact in multiple settings intended to promote conversation, future iterations could be more
conversation from the initial stages of their invention streamlined as a quick reference as consultants
process to video development and then toward analysis become more versed in these categories and training is
of the entire ePortfolio and its components. One of the developed. By distilling the content in each category,
primary goals of this collaboration is to develop the rubric could be more portable and manageable for
multiliteracy skills in ePortfolio students, providing use in consultations. Future training for consultants
them with feedback throughout the process that will should include an increased emphasis on visual
guide them in the future. Through this process, students literacy and multimodal communication.
are better able to articulate elements of their portfolios As a result of our experience integrating the Noel
and sufficiently prepared to integrate compelling Studio into the ePortfolio process within the
written, oral, visual, electronic, and aural elements into curriculum of a foundational education course, we
their ePortfolios. This development extends beyond the foresee implementation of similar models in a wide
completion of the ePortfolio or degree program. variety of settings and campuses. We recommend
Students see a process emerge that was not as apparent implementing ePortfolios as part of an integrated
beforehand. As ePortfolio designers, students benefit assessment system by
from a more refined process, as they are better able to
assemble components and articulate objectives for their • starting simple, collaborating with
own projects as they begin envisioning their place in communication consultants trained in written,
the professional world—in this case as educators in the oral, visual, electronic, and group
classroom. Through ePortfolios, students have the communication;
opportunity to employ a grammar of visuals, as Kress • building upon work completed in the
and van Leeuwen (1996) suggested, to convey a classroom environment; and
professional ethos. This opportunity is unlike that of • embracing the performative role of multimodal
traditional research papers or interviews alone. In the communication in ePortfolio design.
design of ePortfolios, multiple modes come together to
form a more powerful communication product. The As this experience suggests, there is great potential for
multiliteracy center is the ideal home for these projects, consultations to enhance the design process for
one that complements the classroom and provides ePortfolio students. We began with a visionary
Carpenter, Apostel, and Hyndman Developing a Model for ePortfolio Design 171

collaboration and have developed a model that will Resources for teachers (pp. 153-165). Cresskill,
allow the two areas to complement and extend one NJ: Hampton.
another with EKU staff, faculty, and students learning Hamp-Lyons, L., & Condon, W. (2000). Assessing the
side-by-side with one another. portfolio. Cresskill, NJ: Hampton.
Horn, R. (1998). Visual language: Global
References communication for the 21st century. Bainbridge
Island, WA: MacroVU.
Arola, K. L. (2010). The design of web 2.0: The rise of Hyndman, S. M., & Hyndman, J. (2005). Creating an
the template, the fall of design. Computers and ePortfolio with MS FrontPage: It doesn’t get any
Composition, 27(4), 4-14. easier! Essays in Education, 14(Summer).
doi:10.1016/j.compcom.2009.11.004 Retrieved from
Barab, S. A., Barnett, M., & Squire, K. (2002). www.usca.edu/essays/vol142005/hyndman.pdf
Developing an empirical account of a community Kimball, M. A. (2002). The web portfolio guide:
of practice: Characterizing the essential tensions. Creating electronic portfolios for the web. New
Journal of the Learning Sciences, 11(4), 489-542. York, NY: Longman.
doi:10.1207/S15327809JLS1104_3 Kress, G., & van Leeuwen, T. (1996). Reading images:
Barrett, H. (2001). Electronic portfolios = multimedia The grammar of visual design. London, England:
development + portfolio development: The Routledge.
electronic portfolio development process. In B. L. Metros, S. E. (2008). The educator’s role in preparing
Cambridge, S. Kahn, D. P. Tompkins, & K. B. visually literate learners. Theory into Practice,
Yancey (Eds.), Electronic portfolios: Emerging 47(2), 102-109. doi:10.1080/00405840801992264
practices in student, faculty, and institutional Metros, S. E., & Dehoney, J. (2006). Communicating
learning (pp. 110-116). Washington, DC: visually: New fluencies for the academic
American Association for Higher Education. community conference workshop. San Diego, CA:
Carpenter, R., & Apostel, S. (2012). Communication EDUCAUSE Learning Initiative.
center ethos: Remediating space, encouraging Mitchell, C., Dillon, D., Strong-Wilson, T., Pithouse,
collaboration. In L. Y. Eunkyong & W. Atkins- K., Islam, F., O'Connor, K., . . . Cole, A. (2010).
Sayre (Eds.), Communication centers and oral Things fall apart and come together: Using the
communication programs in higher education: visual for reflection in alternative teacher education
Advantages, challenges, and new directions (pp. programmes. Changing English: Studies in Culture
163-174). Lanham, MD: Lexington Books. & Education, 17(1), 45-55.
Click, B., & Magruder, S. (2004). Implementing doi:10.1080/13586840903557068
electronic portfolios for performance assessment: Peet, M., Lonn, S. Gurin, P., Boyer, K. P., Matney, M.,
A pilot program involving a college writing center. Marra, T., Himbeault, S., & Daley, A. (2011).
Assessment Update: Progress, Trends, and Fostering integrative knowledge through
Practices in Higher Education 16(4), 1-15. ePortfolios. International Journal of ePortfolio,
doi:10.1002/au.164 1(1), 11-31.
Dixon, S., & Smith, B. (2007). Digital performance: A Pemberton, M. (2003). Preparing for hypertext in the
history of new media in theater, dance, writing center . . . Or not. Writing Center Journal,
performance art, and installation. Cambridge, MA: 24(1), 9-24.
MIT Press. Ramírez, K. (2011). ePerformance: Crafting,
Fishman, T. (2010). When it isn’t even on the page: rehearsing, and presenting the ePortfolio persona.
Peer consulting in multimedia environments. In D. International Journal of ePortfolio, 1(1), 1-9.
M. Sheridan & J. A. Inman (Eds.), Multiliteracy Kostelnick, C., & Roberts, D. D. (1997). Designing
centers: Writing center work, new media, and visual language: Strategies for professional
multimodal rhetoric (pp. 59-73). Cresskill, NJ: communicators. Harlow, England: Longman.
Hampton. Selfe, C. (2004). Toward new media texts: Taking up
FitzPatrick, M., & Spiller, D. (2010). The teaching the challenges of visual literacy. In A. F. Wysocki,
portfolio: Institutional imperative or teacher’s J. Johnson-Eilola, C. Selfe, & G. Sirc (Eds.),
personal journey? Higher Education Research & Writing new media: Theory and applications for
Development, 29(2), 167-178. expanding the teaching of composition (pp. 67-
doi:10.1080/07294360903470985 110). Logan, UT: Utah State Press.
Goffman, E. (1959). The presentation of self in Sheridan, D. (2010). All things to all people:
everyday life. Garden City, NY: Doubleday. Multiliteracy consulting and the materiality of
Griffin, J. (2007). Making connections with writing rhetoric. In D. M. Sheridan & J. A. Inman (Eds.),
centers. In C. Selfe (Ed.), Multimodal composition: Multiliteracy centers: Writing center work, new
Carpenter, Apostel, and Hyndman Developing a Model for ePortfolio Design 172

media, and multimodal rhetoric (pp. 75-107). Cambridge, S. Kahn, D. P. Tompkins, & K. B.
Cresskill, NJ: Hampton. Yancey. Electronic portfolios: Emerging practices
Shulman, L. S. (1998). Teacher portfolios. In N. Lyons in student, faculty, and institutional learning (pp.
(Ed.), With portfolio in hand: Validating the new 44-52). Washington, DC: American Association
teacher professionalism (pp. 23-28). New York, for Higher Education.
NY: Teachers College Press. ____________________________
Springfield, E. (2001). A major redesign of the
Kalamazoo portfolio. In B. L. Cambridge, S. Kahn, RUSSELL CARPENTER, recipient of the Von Till
D. P. Tompkins, & K. B. Yancey. Electronic Outstanding Newcomer award from the National
portfolios: Emerging practices in student, faculty, Association of Communication Centers, is director of
and institutional learning (pp. 53-59). Washington, the Noel Studio for Academic Creativity and assistant
DC: American Association for Higher Education. professor of English at Eastern Kentucky University.
Trimbur, J. (2000). Multiliteracies, social futures, and Carpenter received a Ph.D. in Texts & Technology
writing centers. The Writing Center Journal, 20(2), from the University of Central Florida.
29-32.
Williams, R. (1994). The non-designer’s design book: SHAWN APOSTEL is the communication coordinator
Design and typographic principles for the visual at the Noel Studio for Academic Creativity at Eastern
novice. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson Kentucky University. His research interests include
Education. visual communication, digital ethos, and instructional
Yancey, K. (2001a). Introduction: Digitized student use of cloud-based composition programs. Apostel
portfolios. In B. L. Cambridge, S. Kahn, D. P. received a Ph.D. in Rhetoric and Technical
Tompkins, & K. B. Yancey. Electronic portfolios: Communication from Michigan Technological
Emerging practices in student, faculty, and University.
institutional learning (pp. 15-30). Washington,
DC: American Association for Higher Education. JUNE OVERTON HYNDMAN is an assistant
Yancey, K. (2001b). General patterns and the future. In education professor at Georgetown College. Her
B. L. Cambridge, S. Kahn, D. P. Tompkins, & K. research interests include teacher reflection, online
B. Yancey. Electronic portfolios: Emerging teacher portfolios, and the history of American Public
practices in student, faculty, and institutional Education. Hyndman received a Ph.D. in Educational
learning (pp. 83-87). Washington, DC: American Policy Studies and Higher Education from the
Association for Higher Education. University of Kentucky.
Zalatan, K. (2001). Electronic portfolios in a
management major curriculum. In B. L.