Portfolios to Webfolios and Beyond: Levels of Maturation

Paul Gathercoal, Ph.D.

California Lutheran University

gatherco@clunet.edu

Doug Love, Ph.D.

Illinois State University

dolove@ilstu.edu

Gerry McKean, Ph.D.

Illinois State University

gwmckea@ilstu.edu

Introduction

Webfolios may have the most significant effect on education since the introduction of formal schooling. When fully matured and implemented by capable professional educators, throughout every discipline within an educational institution, webfolios promise an authentic alternative to high stakes testing that currently focus’ education on test-taking rather than on teaching and learning. This promise that webfolios hold for a richer educational experience for all will not be realized unless educators embrace webfolio concepts and apply them at their highest level of maturation. This will take time as educational institutions and educators will need to systematically work through five levels of maturation before arriving at an “Authentic Alternative to High Stakes Testing.”

This article will chronicle the journey from paper and e-portfolios to webfolios and it will define five levels of maturation. A taxonomy for the “Determination of Levels of Maturation” is included and can be used to ascertain a particular educational institution’s level of maturation and concomitantly, provide a conceptual guidance framework for attaining the highest level of maturation.

Defining the Levels of Maturation

By analyzing and categorizing eight physical and theoretical qualities inherent in the portfolio/webfolio processes and applications the authors have determined the five Levels of Maturation. The eight qualities used to help establish these levels are:

1. Type of portfolio/webfolio – working or showcase

2. Organization of the portfolio/webfolio

3. Type of student artifact in the portfolio/webfolio

4. Presence and capture of feedback and assessment

5. Nature of the portfolio/webfolio content – static or dynamic and evolving

6. Heuristic processes involved in developing the portfolio/webfolio

7. Context provided for each item in the portfolio/webfolio

8. Delivery mode for the portfolio/webfolio

As well, the authors have considered six value-oriented issues associated with the portfolio/webfolio processes and applications in establishing each of the Levels of Maturation. The six issues we considered are:

1. The value to the student

2. The value to the employer

3. The value to the educator

4. The value to the educational institution

5. The potential for contributing to digital equity within the educational institution

6. The expense involved in developing the portfolio/webfolio

By applying these criteria to the portfolio/webfolio process and application, we have been able to identify five Levels of Maturation. The levels are:

Maturation Level 1 – Scrapbook

Maturation Level 2 – Curriculum Vitae

Maturation Level 3 – Curriculum Collaboration between student and faculty

Maturation Level 4 – Mentoring Leading to Mastery

Maturation Level 5 – Authentic Evidence as the Authoritative Evidence for assessment, evaluation and reporting

Different programs within educational institutions can operate at various levels of maturation simultaneously. Different educators in the same program may also be operating at different levels. The taxonomy for “Determination of Level of Maturation,” at the end of this article, will assist educators in ascertaining where they are in the process and what they can do to get to the next level of maturation.

The Levels of Maturation Defined

Maturation Level 1 – Scrapbook

At Level 1, the few students who develop portfolios are really just putting together a scrapbook and they do this primarily on their own initiative to help them remember where they have been and what they have done. Their portfolio is simply a collection of selected assignments completed in a course or awards they received along the way. These students are usually unaware of each other’s scrapbook activities. Most of them produce a new scrapbook for each course or year in the program. They have no schema for how to continue building a scrapbook from one experience to the next.

The organization of the student portfolio is chaotic. Portfolios containing work samples from a variety of courses spanning several years are nonexistent or rare at best. If they do exist, the content and format varies considerably from student to student reflecting the unguided efforts of students working alone. A few students see the scrapbook as a device that may help them get a job, but most students place little value on their collection of work.

The feedback students receive on their Level 1 portfolios is usually limited to comments and grades displayed on the work samples. When students have an opportunity to share their scrapbook with an interested party, they must hand deliver it if it is not on the web and if it is on the web, the feedback will be asynchronous via email at best. If they do share their scrapbook with a prospective employer, they can usually find time to show them only a few items and the interested party is usually drawn to the visual elements of the scrapbook, initiating feedback like, “So, you took a course in...”

Student decisions on what to include in the Level 1 portfolio depends on the student and how she or he feels about a particular work sample. There is little deep reflection as decisions to include one item over another are more emotional overtones associated with a particular item than they are based on informed criteria.

At best, the student provides a time-based context for each item in the scrapbook. She or he arranges each item from beginning to end to tell the story of their success or growth. Often, this chronological arrangement is the only clue the viewer is given about context. The interested viewer can only guess at the meaning of each item as the entire portfolio is developed and displayed by the student alone.

Other than a collection device, the portfolio may be of no other value to the student. If the heuristic process was a rich one, then the value will increase. But, there is no telling how rich that process has been as the only context interested others have is provided by and communicated from the student’s perspective.

The Level 1 portfolio is of little value to the educator and of no value to the educational institution. The Level 1 portfolio or scrapbook process does not assure digital equity and scrapbooks are relatively expensive as they are difficult to maintain, organize and distribute and the student must continually develop a new one each time he or she updates it.

TABLE 1. provides a summary of qualities used to describe portfolios, e-portfolios and webfolios at Maturation Level l – Scrapbook.

TABLE 1. Maturation Level 1 Summary.

Level 1	Paper Portfolio	E-Portfolio	Webfolio
Description	Hardcopy Scrapbook	Electronic Scrapbook on Disk or CD-ROM	Electronic Scrapbook mounted on the WWW
Type	Working or Showcase	Working or Showcase	Working or Showcase
Portfolio Organization	Chaotic	Chaotic or Linked to Homepage	Linked to Homepage
Student Artifact	Written assignments, photographs & audio/video	Multi-media capabilities	Multi-media capabilities
Feedback & Assessment	Adhoc comments and/or graded assignments	Adhoc comments and/or graded assignments	Feedback and Assessment is usually nonexistent
Nature of Content	Static	Static	Static
Heuristic Process	Idiosyncratic	Idiosyncratic	Idiosyncratic
Context	Student-provided	Student-provided	Student-provided
Delivery	Hand-to-hand	Hand-to-hand	Electronic – anywhere, any time
Student Value	Low to High: depends on heuristic process	Low to High: depends on heuristic process	Low to High: depends on heuristic process
Employer Value	Low to High: depends on portfolio type & delivery	Low to High: depends on portfolio type & delivery	Low to High: depends on portfolio type & delivery
Educator Value	Low	Low	Low
Institutional Value	None	None	None
Digital Equity	No Assurance	No Assurance	No Assurance
Expense	High	High	High

Maturation Level 2 – Curriculum Vitae

At Level 2, a cadre of educators or the institution itself has identified a curricular framework or template that will help students to organize and construct their portfolios. This initiative will range from the few educators who require portfolios to an institution-wide requirement for all students. There is little consistency in student generated content or format. There is more consistency in purpose. The portfolios are used to supplement promotion materials or to accompany applications for employment. If the portfolio is a showcase type portfolio only, then it is maintained as a paper portfolio or an e-portfolio. Only the Webfolio will include the working and the showcase portfolio at Level 2.

The educational authority determines the organization of the Level 2 portfolio and students merely conform to this organization as a matter of making it through the program. Some communication from the educator indicating what standards the portfolio must address usually defines the organization of a Level 2 portfolio. If it is a paper portfolio or an e-portfolio this is usually communicated on paper or electronic messaging. If it is a Level 2 Webfolio, this organization can be communicated via a template or organizational database that leads to conformity of all students.

The items that will appear in the Level 2 portfolio will range from the scrapbook type entries to multi-media presentations in the e-portfolio and webfolio versions. As a result, feedback will range from the comments and grades on assigned papers to asynchronous comments from educators on the multi-media work samples placed in e-portfolios and webfolios.

The student’s heuristic process is limited to the confines of the template provided by the institution or program. With paper and e-portfolios deep reflection is possible, but not encouraged as there is little feedback on their selection of artifacts and how those work samples fit with the standards. Webfolios, organized in a database, allow the student to reflect on each artifact and determine whether it will be a part of their working portfolio or their showcase portfolio. Feedback from educators is usually nonexistent, as the student merely uses the Level 2 portfolio to communicate with prospective employers and as a device to meet all requirements and get through the program.

While the organization of the Level 2 portfolio does provide some contextual clues about the artifacts, the student provides most of the context as she or he describes each item and how it meets some standard or program requirement. The interested viewer can see that the student has some work sample that meets each standard or program requirement, but has no clue why the standard or program requirement is important to the educational institution.

The Level 2 paper and e-portfolio must be hand delivered to interested others. The webfolio version enjoys the ability to be electronically transmitted anytime and anywhere.

The value to employers and students is high. Essentially, the student is communicating an enhance curriculum vitae that provides evidence via the organization that he or she has met institutional standards or program requirements. The heuristic process of developing such a curriculum vitae can only enhance the student’s understanding of the total program and better enable them to provide assurances to employers that they are truly qualified to do a particular job.

The value to educators is moderate as they will instantly be able to see if students can generate work samples that address institutional standards or program requirements. At Level 2, educators do not provide formative feedback, so the feedback given to students is generally summative in nature and determines if students will graduate from the program or institution. As a result of the summative assessment of student work, educators receive some feedback on their teaching and on the program’s effect on students.

The Level 2 portfolios are of low value to the educational institution. The Level 2 portfolio or curriculum vitae does not assure digital equity when displayed in the paper or e-portfolio versions. The Level 2 webfolio version allows the educational institution to ensure every student has equitable access to communication and information resources, and the learning opportunities that are provided within the webfolio system. The paper and e-portfolio versions of the Level 2 portfolio are relatively expensive as they are difficult to maintain and organize and the student must continually develop a new one each time he or she updates it. The Level 2 webfolio’s expense is low as the student can assign and reassign access to a variety of constituencies, she or he can modify items within the webfolio system and they are instantly updated for all to see, and there is no delivery cost to the student.

TABLE 2. provides a summary of qualities used to describe portfolios, e-portfolios and webfolios at Maturation Level 2 – Curriculum Vitae.

TABLE 2. Maturation Level 2 Summary.

Level 2	Paper Portfolio	E-Portfolio	Webfolio
Description	Student work samples organized around a set of standards or curriculum framework	Student work samples organized around a set of standards or curriculum framework	Student work samples organized around a set of standards or curriculum framework
Type	Showcase	Showcase	Working and Showcase
Portfolio Organization	Student work is arranged by Department and Program curriculum initiatives and Institution-wide “Student Life” contributions	Student work is arranged by Department and Program curriculum initiatives and Institution-wide “Student Life” contributions	Student work is arranged by Department and Program curriculum initiatives and Institution-wide “Student Life” contributions
Student Artifact	Written assignments, photographs & audio/video	Multi-media capabilities	Multi-media capabilities
Feedback & Assessment	Adhoc comments and/or graded assignments	Adhoc comments and/or graded assignments	Feedback and Assessment is usually nonexistent
Nature of Content	Static	Static	Static
Heuristic Process	Students respond to course and program assignments	Students respond to course and program assignments	Students respond to course and program assignments while maintaining full control over who (what categories of people, e.g., all teachers, students, recruiters) can “view” each work sample. In this way, the student maintains a working and showcase portfolio, utilizing the same works, but limiting access of the “showcase audience” to the best and most relevant works.
Context	Provided by students.	Provided by students.	Provided by students.
Delivery	Hand-to-hand	Hand-to-hand	Electronic – anywhere, any time
Student Value	High – There is enhanced communication, involving papers, photographs and videotapes, between the student, the teacher, mentors, and recruiters/employers.	High – There is enhanced communication, involving multi-media messages, between the student, the teacher, mentors, and recruiters/employers.	High – There is enhanced communication, involving multi-media messages, between the student, the teacher, mentors, and recruiters/employers. The potential for feedback, reflection and self-critical appraisal within a heuristic process are great.
Employer Value	High – The employer can view the student’s showcase portfolio with the benefit of contextual clues from the student.	High – The employer can view the student’s showcase portfolio with the benefit of contextual clues from the student.	High – The employer can view the student’s showcase portfolio with the benefit of contextual clues from the student.
Educator Value	Moderate – There is enhanced communication, involving papers, photographs and videotapes, between the student, the teacher and mentors.	Moderate – There is enhanced communication, involving multi-media messages, between the student, the teacher and mentors.	Moderate – There is enhanced communication, involving multi-media messages, between the student, the teacher and mentors.
Institutional Value	Low	Low	Low
Digital Equity	No Assurance	No Assurance	Likely, as the educational institution will ensure every student has equitable access to communication and information resources, and the learning opportunities provided within the system.
Expense	High	High	Low

Maturation Level 3 - Curriculum Collaboration between student and faculty

At Level 3, paper and e-portfolios do not exist. Paper and E-portfolios simply do not have the functionality to link formative and summative feedback to specific multi-media student work samples, which is a primary characteristic of Level 3 webfolios. Also characteristic of Level 3 webfolios is the organization of the webfolio by curricular requirements and electives or standards established by a cadre of educators or the institution itself.

The items in the Level 3 webfolio can either be part of a working or a showcase webfolio and the student makes this determination. Work samples will be arranged in a database according to a curricular framework and/or program standards, but the student will still be able to elect who can view what item in the webfolio. As a result, the student will nominate who can provide formative and summative feedback for each webfolio item in the system. This intentional designation of educators and mentors who will be able to view and comment on student work samples is part of the heuristic process where students will not only determine which work samples will be placed in the working webfolio and which work samples are part of their showcase webfolio, but they can also select what types of people can view and comment on their work, e.g., their instructor, all instructors, or all instructors and mentors.

The context for Level 3 webfolios is rich with input from educators, students and the educational institution itself. Educators provide context by displaying their syllabus or unit of work in the webfolio system. This is available to students who register for their course and to employers who view the student’s showcase portfolio. Built into the syllabus is information about the educational institution, often in the form of a link to the educational institutions website. Educators also provide content by supplying information about each required item in the webfolio system. They provide the assignment, information about help with the assignment, resources that will assist with the student completing the assignment, and information about how the assignment will be assessed. All this information is viewable by employers, too, if the student opens the item to them and invites them to view their work. The student also provides context for their work as they respond to the assignment in the webfolio system.

The delivery of the student’s webfolio to educators, mentors or employers is instantaneous with the permission to access their work. Prospective employers can view the student’s webfolio when they receive an email including information on how to access the student’s webfolio, such as logon details or a URL. The employer will see the student’s work samples, the context of the work through assignments and the syllabus or unit of work associated with the student’s webfolio, but not educator and mentor comments.

The value of the Level 3 webfolio is high for students, educators and employers. The Faculty/Student Curriculum Collaboration built into the Level 3 webfolio enhances communication between students and educators and allows for flexibility in delivery of the curriculum and as a result enhances the chances for student success. The educator also benefits from the ability to repeat instructional implementation by copying course content from one semester to the next, each time enriching the content through additional resources and new curricular initiatives. Employers can view the student’s showcase portfolio with the benefit of contextual clues from the institution, the syllabi, the assignments, help, resources and assessment criteria. The value to the educational institution is moderate, as the institution indirectly benefits from the educator’s ability to repeat instructional implementation by copying course syllabi from one instructor to the next.

The Level 3 webfolio’s probability of digital equity is highly likely, as the educational institution will ensure every student has equitable access to communication and information resources, and the learning opportunities provided within the system. The institutional culture ensures that all participate as designers and producers of web-based multi-media messages that are linked to communication and information resources; and that all have equal educational opportunities and experiences that prepare life-long learners to be engaged citizens.

The expense of the Level 3 webfolio is low as the student can assign and reassign access to a variety of constituencies, she or he can modify items within the webfolio system and they are instantly updated for all to see, and there is no delivery cost to the student.

TABLE 3. provides a summary of qualities used to describe webfolios at Maturation Level 3 – Curriculum Collaboration between student and faculty.

TABLE 3. Maturation Level 3 Summary.

Level 3	Paper Portfolio	E-Portfolio	Webfolio
Description	Not Available at this Level	Not Available at this Level	System containing assignments, learning resources, student work, formative & summative feedback.
Type			Working or Showcase
Portfolio Organization			Student work is arranged by Educator determined Department and Program curriculum initiatives and Institution-wide “Student Life” contributions
Student Artifact			Multi-media capabilities
Feedback & Assessment			Feedback is both formative and summative and is provided from teachers and mentors.
Nature of Content			Content may be revised based on feedback
Heuristic Process			Students respond to course and program assignments while maintaining full control over who (what categories of people, e.g., all teachers, students, recruiters) can “view” each work sample. In this way, the student maintains a working and showcase portfolio, utilizing the same works, but limiting access of the “showcase audience” to the best and most relevant works.
Context			Provided by educational institution, program, educators, and students. Includes information about the educational institution, the faculty, the program, specific syllabi, specific assignments, additional help, resources, assessment criteria and the student work sample.
Delivery			Electronic – anywhere, any time
Student Value			High – There is enhanced communication, involving multi-media messages, between the student, the teacher, mentors, and recruiters/employers. The potential for feedback, reflection and self-critical appraisal within a heuristic process are great.
Employer Value			High – The employer can view the student’s showcase portfolio with the benefit of contextual clues from the institution, the syllabi, the assignments, help, resources and assessment criteria.
Educator Value			High – There is enhanced communication, involving multi-media messages, between the student, the teacher and mentors. The educator benefits from the ability to repeat instructional implementation by copying course content from one semester to the next, each time enriching the content through additional resources and new curricular initiatives.
Institutional Value			Moderate – There is enhanced communication, involving multi-media messages, between the student, the teacher and mentors. The institution benefits from the ability to repeat instructional implementation by copying course content from one instructor to the next, each time enriching the content through additional resources and new curricular initiatives.
Digital Equity			Highly likely, as the educational institution will ensure every student has equitable access to communication and information resources, and the learning opportunities provided within the system. The institutional culture ensures that all participate as designers and producers of web-based multi-media messages that are linked to communication and information resources; and that all have equal educational opportunities and experiences that prepare life-long learners to be engaged citizens.
Expense			Low

Maturation Level 4 – Mentoring Leading to Mastery

Level 4 webfolios are organized by curricular requirements and electives or standards that are established by a cadre of educators or the institution; but they also allow students to generate their own portals for displaying work samples and achievements within the same curricular structure or institutional standard. Level 4 webfolios allow for multiple opportunities for students to receive feedback from mentors and educators and to redeem their work through alterations within the system. At the end of a period of time, generally the length of the unit of study, the educator can “lock out” students from making further alterations on their work sample. This will allow educators to make a summative judgment about the work sample and ensure that the summative assessment is linked to the work sample.

Work samples and achievements can either be part of a working or a showcase webfolio. The student will nominate who can view and provide formative and summative feedback for each webfolio item in his or her webfolio. This intentional designation of educators and mentors who will be able to view and comment on student work samples is part of the heuristic process where students will not only determine which work samples will be placed in the working webfolio and which work samples are part of their showcase webfolio, but they can also select what categories of people can view and comment on their work, e.g., their instructor, all instructors, or all instructors and mentors. Additional heuristic value occurs when the student is able to generate her or his own portals for displaying work samples and achievements. The student then not only determines the item of value, but is able to place it in a curricular context and describe the item to interested others who are then given access privileges for viewing and/or commenting on the webfolio item.

The Level 4 webfolio context is even richer than preceding levels as there are descriptions from educators, students, and the educational institution and from student generated webfolio items. Again, educators display their syllabi or units of work with links to the educational institution. Educators also provide information about each required item in the webfolio system. Level 4 webfolios also provide the assignment, helping information, resources that will assist with the student completing the assignment, and information about how the assignment will be assessed. When the student generates a portal for a webfolio item, he or she also adds a description of the item to be placed in the webfolio. This contextual information is all viewable by employers, if the student allows them access to the item and invites them to view his or her work.

The delivery of a student’s webfolio is instantaneous when he or she gives permission to various groups of registered users to access work samples and achievements. Prospective employers can view the student’s webfolio when they enter a given URL in their web browser to access a specific student’s webfolio. The employer will be able to view the student’s work samples and achievements, the assignments, the student generated descriptions and syllabi and units of work associated with the student’s webfolio.

The Level 4 webfolio is of high value for students, educators and employers. The mentoring built into the Level 4 webfolio enables students to work toward mastery of each teaching and learning assignment and to display their own achievements within a curricular context. The enhanced communication between students and educators not only allows for flexibility in delivery of the curriculum enhancing the chances for student success, but students will also be able to redeem their work after receiving reflective feedback from educators and mentors on each attempt to respond to a given assignment.

The educator benefits greatly from the ability to repeat and enhance instructional implementation by copying course syllabi and assignments from one semester to the next, each time enriching the content through additional resources and new curricular initiatives. Employers view the student’s showcase portfolio with the benefit of contextual clues from the institution, the syllabi, the assignments, help, resources, assessment criteria, and student generated descriptions of their achievements. The value to the educational institution is moderate, as the institution indirectly benefits from the educator’s ability to repeat instructional implementation by copying course syllabi from one instructor to the next.

The probability of digital equity is highly likely at Level 4 as the educational institution will ensure every student has equitable access to communication and information resources, and the learning opportunities provided within the webfolio system. The institutional culture will be such to ensure that all will participate as designers and producers of web-based multi-media messages that are linked to communication and information resources; and that all have equal educational opportunities and experiences that will prepare life-long learners to be engaged citizens.

The expense of the Level 4 webfolio is low as the student can assign and reassign access to a variety of constituencies, she or he will modify items within the webfolio system and have them instantly updated for all to see, and there is no delivery cost to the student.

TABLE 4. provides a summary of qualities used to describe webfolios at Maturation Level 4 – Mentoring Leading to Mastery.

TABLE 4. Maturation Level 4 Summary.

Level 4	Paper Portfolio	E-Portfolio	Webfolio
Description	Not Available at this Level	Not Available at this Level	Integrated system containing assignments, learning resources, student work, formative & summative feedback with multiple opportunities to master curricular content.
Type			Working or Showcase
Portfolio Organization			Student work is arranged by Educator determined Department and Program curriculum initiatives and Institution-wide “Student Life” contributions – The student can also contribute to the content structure within the Department and Program curricular framework or “Student Life” Institutional showcase.
Student Artifact			Multi-media capabilities
Feedback & Assessment			Feedback is both formative and summative and is provided from a variety of interested parties, teachers, mentors, administrators, parent/caregiver(s), employers, recruiters.
Nature of Content			Content may be continually revised based on one or more occurrence of instructor and/or mentor feedback until the content is “locked” by the instructor
Heuristic Process			Student controlled process of reflection and critical thinking is mediated by choices made in program, educator, and/or student life. Students will respond to course and program assignments, or construct their own work samples within a particular curriculum, while maintaining full control over who (what categories of people, e.g., all teachers, students, recruiters) can “view” each work sample. In this way, the student maintains a working and showcase portfolio, utilizing the same works, but limiting access of the “showcase audience” to the best and most relevant works.
Context			Provided by educational institution, program, educators, and students. Includes information about the educational institution, the faculty, the program, specific syllabi, specific assignments, additional help, resources, assessment criteria and the student work sample. Students can provide their own product description and insert work samples.
Delivery			Electronic – anywhere, any time
Student Value			High – There is enhanced communication, involving multi-media messages, between the student, the teacher, mentors, significant others, recruiters, employers. The potential for feedback, reflection and self-critical appraisal within a heuristic process are maximized.
Employer Value			High – There is enhanced communication, involving multi-media messages, between the student, the teacher, the institution and employers. The employer can view the student’s showcase portfolio with the benefit of contextual clues from the institution, the syllabi, the assignments, help, resources and assessment criteria.
Educator Value			High – There is enhanced communication, involving multi-media messages, between the student, the teacher, mentors, significant others, recruiters, employers. The educator benefits from the ability to repeat instructional implementation by copying course content from one semester to the next, each time enriching the content through additional resources and new curricular initiatives.
Institutional Value			Moderate – There is enhanced communication, involving multi-media messages, between the student, the teacher, mentors, significant others, recruiters, employers. The institution benefits from the ability to repeat instructional implementation by copying course content from one instructor to the next, each time enriching the content through additional resources and new curricular initiatives.
Digital Equity			Highly likely, as the educational institution will ensure every student has equitable access to communication and information resources, and the learning opportunities provided within the system. The institutional culture ensures that all participate as designers and producers of web-based multi-media messages that are linked to communication and information resources; and that all have equal educational opportunities and experiences that prepare life-long learners to be engaged citizens.
Expense			Low

Maturation Level 5 – Authentic Evidence as the Authoritative Evidence for assessment, evaluation and reporting

At Level 5 webfolios are organized by curricular requirements and electives or standards established by a cadre of educators or the institution; and students can generate their own portals for displaying work samples and achievements within the same curricular structure or institutional standard. In addition, educators link standards, department goals and other descriptors like higher order thinking taxonomies to specific webfolio items, including student generated work samples and achievements. Level 5 webfolios allow for multiple opportunities for students to receive feedback from mentors and educators and to redeem their work through alterations in the webfolio system; and at the end of a period of time, generally the length of the unit of study, the educator can “lock out” students from making further alterations on their work sample and assign a quantifiable summative assessment to their work. “Locking students out” functionally disables the student’s ability to make changes to specific work samples and achievements and it enables educator’s to link quantifiable summative judgments to specific student work samples.

Work samples and achievements can either be part of a working or a showcase webfolio. The student will nominate who can view and provide formative and summative feedback for each webfolio item in his or her webfolio. This intentional designation of educators and mentors who will be able to view and comment on student work samples is part of the heuristic process where students will not only determine which work samples will be placed in the working webfolio and which work samples are part of their showcase webfolio, but they can also select what types of people can view and comment on their work, e.g., their instructor, all instructors, or all instructors and mentors. Additional heuristic value occurs as the student generates her or his own portals for displaying work samples and achievements. The student, then, not only determines which artifacts are of value, but is able to place it in a curricular context and describe the artifact for interested others who are then given access privileges for viewing and/or commenting on the webfolio item. As well, educators can assign standards, departmental goals and other descriptors like higher order thinking taxonomies to the student generated work samples and achievements.

The delivery of a student’s webfolio is instantaneous when he or she gives permission to various groups of registered users who access the student’s work samples and achievements. Prospective employers view the student’s webfolio by entering a given URL in a web browser to access a specific student’s webfolio. The employer will be able to view the student’s work samples and achievements, the assignments, the student generated descriptions and syllabi and units of work associated with the student’s webfolio.

The Level 5 webfolio is of high value for students, educators and employers. The Level 5 Authentic Alternative to High Stakes Testing enables students to work toward mastery of each teaching and learning assignment and to display their own achievements within a curricular context. The enhanced communication between students and educators not only allows for flexibility in delivery of the curriculum which enhances the chances for student success, but students will also be able to redeem their work after receiving reflective feedback from educators and mentors on each attempt they make at responding to a given assignment.

The value to the educator is high as he or she benefits greatly from the ability to repeat and enhance instructional implementation by copying course syllabi and assignments complete with links to standards and departmental goals and other taxonomies, like higher order thinking, from one semester to the next, each time enriching the content through additional resources and new curricular initiatives. The educator will also be able to ascertain how many and which students did not meet, met or exceeded standards that were linked to specific assignments. As a result, they can use the assessment data generated within the webfolio system each semester to assist with course revision.

The value to employers is high as they are able to view the students’ showcase portfolios with the benefit of contextual clues from the institution, the syllabi, the assignments, help, resources, assessment criteria, and student generated descriptions of their achievements.

The value to the educational institution is high as there is enhanced communication, involving multi-media messages, between the student, the teacher, mentors, and significant others such as recruiters and employers. The institution benefits from the functional ability to repeat instructional implementation by copying course content, complete with links to standards and departmental goals and other taxonomies, like higher order thinking, from one instructor to the next, each time enriching the content through additional resources and new curricular initiatives. The institution can also ascertain how many and which students did not meet, met or exceeded standards linked to specific work samples and achievements. The institution can use the assessment data generated from the webfolio system each semester to assist with program assessment and revision.

The probability of digital equity is highly likely at Level 5 as the educational institution will ensure every student has equitable access to communication and information resources, and the learning opportunities provided within the webfolio system. The institutional culture will be such to ensure that all will participate as designers and producers of web-based multi-media messages that are linked to communication and information resources; and that all have equal educational opportunities and experiences that will prepare life-long learners to be engaged citizens.

The expense of the Level 5 webfolio is low as the student can assign and reassign access to a variety of constituencies, she or he will modify items within the webfolio system and have them instantly updated for all to see, and there is no delivery cost to the student.

TABLE 5. provides a summary of qualities used to describe webfolios at Maturation Level 5 – Authentic Evidence as the Authoritative Evidence for assessment, evaluation and reporting.

TABLE 5. Maturation Level 5 Summary.

Level 5	Paper Portfolio	E-Portfolio	Webfolio
Description	Not Available at this Level	Not Available at this Level	Integrated system containing assignments, learning resources, student work, formative & summative feedback linked to national, state and program standards with multiple opportunities to master curricular content.
Type			Working or Showcase
Portfolio Organization			Student work is arranged by Educator determined Department and Program curriculum initiatives and Institution-wide “Student Life” contributions – The student can also contribute to the content structure within the Department and Program curricular framework or “Student Life” Institutional showcase.
Student Artifact			Multi-media capabilities
Feedback & Assessment			Feedback is both formative and summative and is provided from a variety of interested parties, teachers, mentors, administrators, parent/caregiver(s), employers, recruiters. Work sample assessment is linked to national, state and program standards and retrieved for analysis at the individual, class, program or institutional level.
Nature of Content			Content is dynamic and may be continually revised based on one or more occurrence of instructor and/or mentor feedback until the content is “locked” by the instructor
Heuristic Process			Student controlled process of reflection and critical thinking is mediated by choices made in program, educator, and/or student life. Students will respond to course and program assignments, or construct their own work samples within a particular curriculum, while maintaining full control over who (what categories of people, e.g., all teachers, students, recruiters) can “view” each work sample. In this way, the student maintains a working and showcase portfolio, utilizing the same works, but limiting access of the “showcase audience” to the best and most relevant works.
Context			Provided by educational institution, program, educators, and students. Includes information about the educational institution, the faculty, the program, specific syllabi, specific assignments, additional help, resources, assessment criteria and the student work sample. Students can provide their own product description and insert work samples.
Delivery			Electronic – anywhere, anytime
Student Value			High – There is enhanced communication, involving multi-media messages, between the student, the teacher, mentors, significant others, recruiters, employers. The potential for feedback, reflection and self-critical appraisal within a heuristic process are maximized.
Employer Value			High – There is enhanced communication, involving multi-media messages, between the student, the teacher, the institution and employers. The employer can view the student’s showcase portfolio with the benefit of contextual clues from the institution, the syllabi, the assignments, help, resources and assessment criteria.
Educator Value			High – There is enhanced communication, involving multi-media messages, between the student, the teacher, mentors, significant others, recruiters, employers. The educator benefits from the ability to repeat instructional implementation by copying course content from one semester to the next, each time enriching the content through additional resources and new curricular initiatives. The educator will also be able to ascertain how many and which students did not meet, met or exceeded standards that were linked to specific assignments. Thus, using the assessment data from the system to assist course revision.
Institutional Value			High – There is enhanced communication, involving multi-media messages, between the student, the teacher, mentors, significant others, recruiters, employers. The institution benefits from the ability to repeat instructional implementation by copying course content from one instructor to the next, each time enriching the content through additional resources and new curricular initiatives. The institution can also ascertain how many and which students did not meet, met or exceeded standards linked to specific assignments. Thus, using the assessment data from the system to assist program revision.
Digital Equity			Highly likely, as the educational institution will ensure every student has equitable access to communication and information resources, and the learning opportunities provided within the system. The institutional culture ensures that all participate as designers and producers of web-based multi-media messages that are linked to communication and information resources; and that all have equal educational opportunities and experiences that prepare life-long learners to be engaged citizens.
Expense			Low

Determination of Level of Maturation

The following taxonomy can be used to ascertain at what Level of Maturation a particular educational institution or educator is operating. It is important to remember that educational institutions can operate at various levels of maturation at the same time as different programs and educators will be operating at different levels within the one educational institution. The taxonomy for “Determination of Level of Maturation,” can assist educators to ascertain where they are in the process and what they can do to get to the next level of maturation. Once a current level of process and application has been determined, educators can refer to the next Level of Maturation (defined in the preceding descriptions) to draw together clues to assist implementation at the next maturation level.

TABLE 6. provides a series of affirming statements that when assessed with a “Yes” this is present or a “No” this is not present, can be used to ascertain an educators or an educational institutions’ Level of Maturation.

TABLE 6. Taxonomy of Criteria for Ascertaining an Educational Institutions’ Level of Maturation from Portfolios to Webfolios and Beyond.

Criteria for Level of Maturation

“Yes” Response

“No” Response

The portfolio is organized around Department and Program curriculum initiatives and/or Institution-wide “Student Life” contributions

“Yes”

Continue to Next Criteria

“No”

Level 1

Maturation Level 1 – Scrapbook

Maturation Level 2 – Curriculum Vitae

Maturation Level 3 – Curriculum Collaboration between student and faculty

Maturation Level 4 – Mentoring Leading to Mastery

Maturation Level 5 – Authentic Evidence as the Authoritative Evidence for assessment, evaluation and reporting

As educators systematically work through these five Levels of Maturation eventually arriving at an “Authentic Alternative to High Stakes Testing” they may find they are involved in one of the greatest revolutions in educational thinking since the commencement of formal schooling.

References

Cole, D., Ryan, C., Kick, F. & Mathies, B. (2000). Portfolios Across the Curriculum and Beyond. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press

Kilbane, C. & Milman, N. (2003). The digital teaching portfolio handbook: A how-to guide for educators. Boston: Allyn and Bacon

Solomon, G., Allen, N. & Resta, P. (Eds.) (2003) Toward digital equity: Bridging the divide in education. Boston: Allyn and Bacon

Strickland, K. & Strickland, J. (2000) Reflections on Assessment: Its Purposes, Methods & Effects on Learning. Portsmouth, NH: Boynton/Cook.

Wyatt, R. & Looper, S. (1999). So you have to have a portfolio: A teacher's guide to preparation and presentation. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press.

Yancey, K. & Weiser, I. (Eds.) (1997) Situating Portfolios: Four Perspectives. Logan, Utah: Utah State University Press.

The Levels of Maturation Defined

Maturation Level 1 – Scrapbook

Level 1

Description

Maturation Level 2 – Curriculum Vitae

Level 2

Description

Maturation Level 3 - Curriculum Collaboration between student and faculty

Level 3

Description

Maturation Level 4 – Mentoring Leading to Mastery

Level 4

Description

Maturation Level 5 – Authentic Evidence as the Authoritative Evidence for assessment, evaluation and reporting

Level 5

Description

Determination of Level of Maturation

“Yes”

“No”

Level 1

“Yes”

“No”

“Yes”

“No”

“Yes”

“No”

“Yes”

“No”

“Yes”