1. Ufolio Preliminary Report - Year One, 2008-2009
June 15, 2009
Contributors:
Ron Bramhall
Director - Honors Program, Lundquist College Of Business
Instructor - Leadership and Communication, Lundquist College of Business
Nancy Cheng
Associate Professor, Department of Architecture
Lori L. Hager, Ph.D.
Assistant Professor, Arts and Administration Program
Associate Director, Center for Community Arts and Cultural Policy
Jonathon Richter, Ed.D.
Research Associate, Center for Advanced Technology in Education
Eric J. Schiff, MA
Adjunct Instructor, Arts and Administration Program
Compiled by Lori Hager, edited by Nancy Cheng
Abstract: This report presents a preliminary summary of activities, accomplishments, and
recommendations from the first phase of the Ufolio project, which includes Lunquist
College of Business, the Arts and Administration Program, and the Architecture
Department, with support from the Center for Advanced Technology in Education.
Ufolio : Preliminary Year-End Report
June 15, 2009
Purpose of this report
The purpose of this document is to provide a preliminary summary report on the first year of the
UFolio pilot project, involving the LCB Honors Program, the Arts and Administration Program, and
School of Architecture. This report reflects very preliminary findings and observations. A more
detailed analysis of the first-year findings will follow. In Section I, this document presents a position
summary; Section II re-states our original project objectives; Section III describes accomplishments
and outcomes; and makes recommendations for next year; Section IV presents student anecdotes

2. and reflections. A supplemental appendix includes individual faculty and research associate report. A
project budget is provided in Section V (additional attachment).
Section I - Preliminary Summary
Ufolio is a collection of academic units interested in implementing eportfolios, or personal learning
environments, at the University of Oregon. Support from the Vice Provost’s office allowed AAD,
ARCH, and LCB to pilot a multi-disciplinary eportfolio system during the academic year 2008-2009.
After extensive research on eportfolio processes, research, and systems, Ufolio selected to work with
an open source web 2.0 “mash-up” system using word press multi-user, which central IS agreed to
support for two years. Pilot groups were formed, and student usability assessment materials
collected, and will provide the basis for more-detailed analysis and report. Efforts on campus are
contextualized within the broader higher education eportfolio community through participation in
Inter/National Coalition for Electronic Portfolio Research (INCEPR) bi-annual meetings and reporting.
This preliminary report summarizes findings, re-states objectives, and presents recommendations.
Anecdotal student reflective comments are included, and a revised budget provided.
Project Overview (From Ufolio planning proposal)
Our project examines the broad question: “What eportfolio process and system can best address
student-centered assessment, diverse curricular requirements, and co-curricular learning?” Faculty
from three academic units will develop student-centered learning addressing course objectives
through integration with a multi-disciplinary eportfolio environment. At the same time, a needs
assessment for instituting a broader campus eportfolio system will be investigated. By the end of the
first year, we expect to have working prototypes across the engaged academic units, piloted systems
that are flexible in a multidisciplinary environment, and developed student assessment components
related to learning objectives and student-centered eportfolios.
Summary
This is a faculty-driven eportfolio initiative. This has both benefits and challenges in terms of
engagement and sustainability. Many higher education eportfolios are housed in administrative
teaching and learning hubs, equivalent to our Teaching Effectiveness Program. This is largely a result
of how and why eportfolios are used institutionally. Institutional eportfolios require a mechanism for
implementation, support, and training. Those eportfolio systems driven through a teaching and
learning center may have difficulty getting faculty and students involved, when eportfolios are not
required, or viewed as instrumental to education goals, and may have a large learning curve for
faculty and students. Department or faculty-driven eportfolios may arise from faculty and student
needs and goals, but struggle with sustaining such a system or program through lack of resources and
support infrastructures. Further, reward structures for faculty participation may be non-existent.
Though higher education institutions are attracted to eportfolios for their value in informing
accreditation and assessment purposes, the eportfolio community often views this as at-odds with
the purposes of eportfolios - to promote student-centered learning and reflection, and authentic
assessment and demonstration. This tension frequently results in localized solutions and practices,
making the identification of a “one-size fits all” eportfolio platform virtually impossible, despite the
proliferation of available eportfolio platforms that can be implemented cross-insitutionally[1]. Each
practice comes with its own set of requirements and challenges. Minnesota has a state-wide
eportfolio requirement, and has developed a platform in-house, responsive to the particular needs of
their education environment. California is adopting a state-wide eportfolio system and have selected

3. epsilen for their platform. Both states have committed significant resources to administrative,
technical, and faculty support structures for eportfolios. Through our participation in the
Intern/National Coalition of Electronic Portfolio Research (INCEPR) we can stay at the leading edge of
the developments in how Higher Education is addressing these challenges.
Our pilot group has experienced similar tensions in finding commonalities in approach to learning,
curriculum, and assessment. As a group composed of NTTF, adjunct faculty, tenure track, and tenured
faculty, our positions within our respective departments and programs affect our approach to student
participation in eportfolios, what we perceive of as the value and outcome for student participation,
the role of faculty, kinds of skills and tools that should be engaged, and facility with emergent
technologies. All of these informed the process, and were reflected in the choices that were made.
At the February INCEPR meeting, the reference to “personal learning environments” rather than
“eportfolios” seemed to more accurately convey the direction that this project was moving. However
referring to it as a PLE does not capture the essential collaboratory actions of eportfolio processes.
Howard Rheingold is working on a social media classroom that addresses classroom collaboration in
higher education, and other emergent systems point to the efficacy of continuing to struggle with the
tensions reflective of the needs of administration and faculty in addressing student learning for the
21 century.
st
Section II- Objectives and Goals
Project Objectives
As stated in our project proposal: We seek to explore the efficacy of including the eportfolio process
in shared learning objectives that support students to demonstrate and reflect on learning and
present their accomplishments, for faculty to archive and showcase instruction and student work, and
for academic units to collect information on student progress and achievements.
Project Goals for 08/09
Building on the professional and demonstration eportfolios in the AAD graduate program, and the
Architecture studio courses, we plan to expand our eportfolio applications to include reflective
components where students demonstrate mastery of concepts and skills through demonstrations in
their eportfolios. Faculty participants are identifying and developing rubrics related to course and
program objectives, and preparing to work with students to identify demonstrations of learning
(evidence) related to their academic goals and achievements. Faculty will pilot these in the Winter
and Spring term courses.
Research Goals
As part of our participation with the Inter/National Coalition for Electronic Portfolio Research, we
identify research goals and strategies for our eportfolios, and connect these to an international
network of scholars and upper administration personnel in ground-breaking work in eportfolio
applications in HE. We have identified shared learning objectives that we anticipate will form the basis
of cross-curricular and interdisciplinary pilot research groups. We anticipate communicating with the
UO student assessment team to align efforts for student-centered learning.
Section III –Accomplishments, Outcomes, Recommendations

4. • Tested packaged platform systems using functional specifications developed in the fall.
Selected 3 platforms for in-depth analysis. Ultimately none of the platforms assessed were
selected. Instead, based on recommendations from experts in the field, and based on
usability, support, and functional requirements, a WordPress Multi-User web 2.0 “mash-up”
was selected as the eportfolio system for this phase of the pilot.
• IS is supporting the pilot project for 2 years, and assisting to identify necessary supports
and training for wide-spread implementation. Priority support areas and systems will be
further operationalized over the summer for a broader fall term roll-out in the Arts and
Administration Program (AAD) and Lundqusit College of Business (LCB).
• Eportfolio applications were expanded in 7 courses, using both the PLONE-based system,
as well as the new WPMU system. Tutorials were developed for using the PLONE system, and
Helen Barrett will be working with us during the summer to develop the WPMU tutorials and
UFolio portal.
• LCB Honors Program, AAD, and AAA began curriculum mapping integrated with
eportfolio processes and in preparation for implementing in multi-disciplinary environment.
• Usability assessments were conducted in Winter and Spring. (These assessments will be
collated and analyzed during Summer 2009).
• Workshops in Digital Documentation and Digital Storytelling were offered Winter, 2009.
• Additional team members were brought into the AAD project during Winter and Spring,
2009, and will be instrumental in implementing eportfolios program-wide.
• Workshops on curriculum-mapping were conducted by Dr. Jonathon Richter, Center for
Advanced Technology in Education (CATE).
• Students were introduced to the new WPMU-web 2.0 mash up environment during a
spring term pilot in LCB, ARCH, and AAD, and provided critical reflections and analysis.
• Eportfolios applications were expanded in 9 courses.
• Faculty interviews conducted by Dr. Richter will inform the Design-Based Research (DBR)
component of the pilot, and will be analyzed and written up during the summer, 2009.
• Dr. Helen Barrett joined the UO INCEPR team, and will be working and consulting with us
through this next phase of the pilot.
Outcomes and Assessment
There is no “one-size fits all” eportfolio system, rather a flexible learning and collaboration
environment that can address the priority areas of different departments and programs seems to be
at the forefront of the “eportfolio” revolution. Given the limited resources for supporting an
institutional development of an eportfolio system at UO, an open-source web 2.0 system, which is
flexible and malleable, requires minimal programming and system support, and utilizes the tools
students already employ and which they will use in their professional environments, seems to be an
optimal choice at this phase of the project. Initially, WPMU seems to support students to conceive,
guide, and demonstrate their learning in ways that keep them at the center of their learning
processes. Further, students – when shown the potential – are excited to be offered the opportunity
to be agents of their own education, to learn to make the connections in their learning through using

5. tools they are both familiar with, and (for some) in which they are the experts. This has implications
across a range of learning mediums.
Conversations relating to privacy, ownership, and assessment will need to continue. Currently, there
is not an effective process for testing the system preparatory to full-scale implementation, so
continuing to work with IS to address this, is critical.
Working across departments is extremely challenging, and the ways in which both students and
faculty engage in learning and in technology are widely varied. At the same time, recognizing the
need for unit/department-driven solutions further challenges structures in IS support that seek to
support cross-campus collaborations. However, continuing to work inter-departmentally challenges
us to find ways for students to make inter-disciplinary connections, and for the learning environment
to support this.
Further, though the arts have long employed portfolios as demonstrations of learning, it has been the
result of a creative, reflective, and iterative process that is at center of the eportfolio learning.
Business education supports team work, communication, and leadership demonstrated curricularly
and co-curricularly – also an integral component of eportfolio learning. For these reasons, among
others, the unique challenges and solutions of this project have the potential to make a significant
contribution to the field.
Recommendations
• There is no “one-size fits all” eportfolio system; Helen Barrett recommended that instead
we should instead “plant a thousand flowers.” Given the selection of WPMU with infinite
flexibility, each participating department/program will work independently to operationalize
it to suit the unique needs, goals, and structures of their curriculum and programs, while
continuing to benefit from research and resources of engagement with Ufolio, and INCEPR.
• Continue to come together as a learning and resource community on campus through
the eportfolio forum, and identification of shared research agendas through INCEPR.
• Enhance and continue to develop department-level training and support for faculty and
student support through tutors, workshops; and to explore the efficacy of working with other
units on campus in support of training, such as Teaching Effectiveness Program, Central
Computing, and AAA Professional Outreach and Development for Students (PODS).
• Expand usability assessments through surveys and other measures, and use of the
system to aggregate and collect critical reflective and anecdotal feedback on student and
faculty use.
• Continue to streamline the intersection with IS and document protocols for such a
system to be supported on a larger scale. IS is currently committed to the numbers of project
participants based on this year’s pilot, and as such, efficient operability of the current system
for existing project participants is of the highest priority.
• Continue to intersect with the national and international eportfolio development
community through INCEPR, eifel, Rhinegold, and others. Strengthen inter-institutional
relationships relating to eportfolio growth.

6. • Strengthen the outcomes-based assessment component of the project to reflect
institutional priorities.
• Implement eportfolios throughout AAD for undergraduate and graduate students and
courses in a two-year phased roll-out, that will include assessment and evaluation for program
improvement.
• Next cohort of Honors Program students will develop Personal Learning Plans that will be
integrated with curriculum and eportfolio processes and system.
Section IV - WPMU Pilot Student Reflections
I wish that all of my instructors had WPMU blogs so that I could have easy access to their course
resources and more opportunities to communicate and network with them and students in the
classes.
I would suggest that training and attention be paid to student awareness of the appropriate use of
this tool (WPMU/blogs).
Current purpose/design of ePortfolio platform still puzzles me -- it's professional, yet embedded in the
University of Oregon -- to me this means that I can only "get away" with pointing it out to potential
employers for about a year after graduation, because it's so clearly marked out as student work for a
specific year. The website is a much more flexible tool because it's advertisement for me -- not UO.
However, as I understand, my access to that website is limited to about a year, which is also too bad.
I think a good strategy would be to set up a document or blog post and invite group members to
make comments and suggestions so that they learn to work in the site (like WP) and give feedback.
Wikis and Google docs are super handy for compiling group project information, and having this tool
available within a social network is really handy.
Wikis, Blogs - Web 2.0 tools that can hold a lot of content to accommodate a discussion board,
posting documents, posting video messages. I would love to see customizable Twitters in the future
that can be adapted for specific groups.
I wish that Blackboard functioned more like the social networking tools we've used, because they are
so much more intuitive and user-friendly -- however, I'm not sure social networking is a totally
worthwhile option unless it has a specific, course-related purpose. I say this because most social
networking tools are informal and for fun; most students already have their own, personal accounts.

7. There is zero incentive for me to create yet another blog which I'll have to monitor and develop,
unless it serves a function my personal account won't. Eportfolios are a great idea because they are
explicitly professional and worth doing well, but it's important that, given all the user-friendly
platforms available, that students will be able to access and continue using the system for their
professional needs.
Ufolio Participants, 2008-2009
Ron Bramhall
ePortfolio LCB Faculty Liaison, and Platform Development
Lead LCB Director, Honors Program
Nancy Cheng
AIA, ePortfolio Faculty Liaison for Architecture Department, and AAA Platform Development
Associate Professor, Department of Architecture
Lori L. Hager, PhD
Faculty Liaison for Arts and Administration, and ePortfolio Project Director
Assistant Professor, Arts and Administration Program
Associate Director, Center for Community Arts and Cultural Policy
Jonathon Richter, Ed.D
ePortfolio Research Lead
Research Associate
Center for Advanced Technology in Education

8. Eric J Schiff
ePortfolio criteria and usability, and AAA platform development
Adjunct Instructor, Arts and Administration Program
Sandy Fortier
Center for Community Arts and Cultural Policy ePortfolio GRF
Affiliated:
John Fenn, Adjunct Faculty, Arts and Administration Program
Appendix : Faculty and Research Associate reports, 2008/2009
UfoliO Project - Year End Report, 2008-2009
Ron Bramhall – Lundquist College of Business
Introduction
This report summarizes my work with the UfoliO project for the 2008-2009 school year. My activities reflect my goals
specific to the LCB Honors Program, and the overarching goals of the UfoliO Project.
Project Objectives for LCB Honors Program Eportfolios
Determine the viability of eportfolios as a tool for developing, assessing and presenting evidence for deep learning of
cross-curricular professional skills (team skills and oral/written professional communication); determine if eportfolios
could be implemented across the curriculum with minimal involvement of faculty; address whether a successful eportfolio
implementation could truly be student-driven.
I identified the following objectives for my project:
• Define professional skill competency definitions, learning objectives and rubrics
• Define assessment measures of learning for professional skill sets related to communication,
collaboration, ethical decision-making.
• Identify LCB curricular touchpoints of professional skills
• Begin preparing Honors students for eportfolio learning and engagement
• Develop pedgogical processes for eportfolio implementation with LCB Honors students
Objectives
LCB Honors
My objectives for the Honors program this year were to get a functioning eportfolio system in place and begin
implementing that system with ~35 LCB Honors students. This involved both getting technology in place and eportfolio
processes in place.
UfoliO Project and INCEPR Coalition

9. My focus at the UfoliO Project level was to explore eportfolio systems and make recommendations for adoption. I was to
contribute to formulating eportfolio processes and approaches; build support for our project across campus; be an active
member in our work with the INCEPR coalition, which involved contributing to our research reports and attending the bi-
annual meetings.
Goals and Outcomes
LCB Honors
Honors students developed “Intentional Learning Plans”(ILP), designed to have students think intentionally about their
education in the LCB in an integrated way, instead of viewing the Honors Program as a collection of classes. This will be
reintroduced to the new Fall 2009 Cohort as a “Professional Development Plan”.
Identifying core professional competencies in the LCB, mapping those to the curriculum and planning for implementation
with a new cohort beginning Fall 2009, including
• Understand and manage self
• Understand and work with others
• Communicate effectively
• Promote ethical practices
Professional competencies are currently being mapped to the LCB curriculum. Next steps are to identify learning
objectives for each, develop rubrics and identify appropriate artifacts for measurement. By end of summer, I will be fully
ready to implement eportfolios with the new LCB Honors cohort entering Fall 2009.
Goals and Outcomes (continued)
BA 352 Course – Leadership and Communication
Explored WPMU[2] as a Course Management system, using Wordpress instead of Blackboard in a course of 24 students
for everything except emailing the class and Safe Assign. Project Resources and Course Schedule were used to post
documents and readings for each class period. The blog function kept students up to date on happenings in the class, and
each student created their own blog to create and reflect on their Leadership Development Plans.
Used a variety of web 2.0 tools in a “mash-up” including Google Docs for student papers. Students submitted their
assignments through Google Docs. I cut and pasted rubrics at the end of the documents and graded them online. I could
highlight issues, cut and paste common comments and get their feedback to them more quickly. The grading process was
effective but a bit clunky and probably slower than just writing on their papers.
Platform and Research
Investigated multiple eportfolio platforms, and spoke with institutions about their experiences across platforms and
systems.

10. Active participation with the INCEPR coalition, which involved contributing to our research reports and attending the bi-
annual meetings.
Exploring the viability of using Wordpress Multiuser, along with other Web 2.0 tools.
We gained commitment from Central Computing to host the platform for a 2-year period and began testing.
I contributed to formulating eportfolio processes and approaches. I wrote a grant proposal for funding through the Big
Ideas process. The proposal was not accepted but it did intersect with several other proposals focused on reforming the
UO’s approach to undergraduate education, helped us crystallize our thinking about our project and raised awareness on
campus about the need for better integration of technology and educational strategies.
I interfaced with other interested groups on campus, most notably the Clark Honors College.
Project Assessment and Reflection
Our project has gone slower than we originally anticipated. I believe this is a function of our original plan being too
ambitious rather than any major deficits in our work. While it is true that eportfolio pedagogies are more important than
the technology, those pedagogies cannot be tested without some technology in place. As such, the delays in getting the
technology implemented hindered our abilities to move forward with our testing of eportfolio processes.
That said, I believe the time spent digging deeper into what eportfolios might look like in our various programs was time
well spent. We are better positioned to use the technology now than we were 9 months ago.
There is no one platform that will lead to success in eportfolios. Every successful implementation I have seen begins with
a clear understanding of the goals of the eportfolio, clear eportfolio processes, clear instruction and support for faculty
and students, and clear motivation for faculty and students to engage.
ePortfolio End of Year Summary
Nancy Cheng , Associate Professor, Architecture
This year, our faculty team focused our team objectives, developed strong working relationships and made progress on
implementing a new platform. Our team project goals fall into the following areas
1) Technology: System specification, then evaluation or development
2) Teaching : Curricular implementation
3) Research : Find best implementation methods & system to meet student, faculty
and administrative needs. Comparison of communication / collaboration across disciplines
4) Dissemination : Creating a broader audience for cross-fertilization
1) Technology: I focused on trying online systems (more than contributing to the system specification and evaluation.) I
used ePortfolios to clarify expectations, promote reflection, document progress, and facilitate feedback and assessment.

11. Three of my classes used the Plone ePortfolio system (Fall Arch 4/584 studio, Arch610 Computer Graphics and Arch384
studio) and the fourth used WordPressMU (a small pilot group)
Primary attributes are summarized below.
Plone ePortfolio Google Sites PbWorks WordpressMU
Positive + + Strongly branded + Easy to use for + Easy to use for + strong ability to
through consistent individual or group Wikis, course sites customize
style. efforts + Robust user + large user base &
permissions documentation
+ Good user support + portable
+ aggregation potential
Negative - - Interface requires - Fixed file quota - costs money $199/ - Interface requires
training - No backup or yr training
- Little graphic transfer method - no social - MU compatibility
customization - little graphic networking requires trial & error
possible customization - less customization
- Hard to find local - no levels of user than standalone WP
developers permissions
- Plone ePortfolio (Fall: 15 Arch 4/.484 students , Winter: 36 Arch 601 students & Spring: 65 Arch 384 students, 85 Arch
222 students): While Plone is a robust, flexible Content Management System, without a developer to address small issues
that loom large for beginners. My students have found the interface awkward, so the system requires tutor support. Our
implementation standardized the look of all pages, making it difficult for design students to be expressive.
- Google Sites (Spring: Arch384 class Wiki): Very intuitive software, easily adaptable to use as a course Wiki or individual
ePortfolio. Limited fixed quotas make the sites impractical for large dynamic project. Little graphic customization. Similar
to PBWorks wiki software, with less control about user permissions.
- PbWorks (used for independent studies & Arch610 resource pages) : works well for Course Wiki.
- WordpressMU (Spring: 5 student pilot group): professional appearance, medium ease of use.
2) Teaching
My major focus has been on thoughtful curricular implementation. I have been focusing on how the transparency of the
ePortfolio system can get students and instructors on the same page and increase accountability in assessment progress.
Working with our UO ePortfolio core and the INCEPR group has taught me a lot about how to be clearer in my teaching.
For my classes, I created both evaluation criteria and ePortfolio support documentation with the help of Davina Camardo
and Eric Schiff.
I have succeeded in getting almost all the students to create some sort of ePortfolio, but the quality and utility of the
online work varies widely. The methods-oriented Computer Graphics class and ePortfolio Pilot group were much more
successful at thoughtful use of the software. In design studios where computer technology was not an explicit part of the
class, students put little energy in to their ePortfolios. Despite being listed as part of the course requirements, the
ePortfolio documentation and reflection was seen as an add-on. >> I’m interested in finding ways to better integrate the
reflective process in with the main objectives of the course.
Circumstances made it difficult to create a successful learning environment. The second-year undergraduates had
learned Dreamweaver and the ePortfolio system in first year but had forgotten the skills. Because they understood the
advantages of authoring a real website, it was hard to get them enthusiastic about the more limited ePortfolios. I
provided four training sessions for the Arch384 students in the middle of the course and offered two followup sessions at
the end of the course. >> In previous years we required incremental submission of portfolio pages for each major building
block of the project. This allowed refinement of a custom graphic template as well as developing the habit of archiving.
Adding the layer of reflection is more challenging because the students are completely geared towards the live
presentation of their work. >> Separating the polished public presentation from the private reflection could help the
challenge of showing dirty laundry in public. If we required the students to present their projects from the online site
using a data projector, we could save printout costs and ensure that the online presentation was polished.

12. 3) Research
We have only begun to look at the research questions we have proposed. I have amassed a large number of online
student ePortfolios to examine, and we developed a survey to collect student preferences and attitudes. >> A major goal
for the summer is to analyze and summarize the student behavior and attitudes from the previous years.
Due to the diversity of disciplines involved, it has been more difficult to create a cross-disciplinary study. We wanted to
look at how ePortfolios could help to guide students in developing Communication and Collaboration skills, so we each
defined Collaboration in terms of discipline-specific objectives, activities, criteria, outcomes, etc. But for Spring 2009, it
turned out that the class contexts of the WordpressMU pilot did not foster this. I encouraged my Architecture pilot
students to use their blog to track their progress towards personal learning goals and the only group activities we had
were giving feedback through comments and an online forum (through Diigo, since BuddyPress wasn’t functional for much
of the term). >> Fall 2009 presents an opportunity to set up a more definitive comparison, where we each identify a team
project and look at how to foster collaborative behavior.
4) Dissemination
We have been successful at building alliances with our natural stakeholders on campus (Helen Chu and Sarah Stubbs of IS
Academic Computing, Andrew Bonamici of the Library), we have connected with partners on campus pursuing similar
goals (Honors College, Foreign Language teaching, Education) and external allies (Helen Barrett, WSU, INCEPR). While our
forums were more lively last year, we have built more in-depth understanding of our mission through our targeted
partnerships. In addition, we gave our ideas a larger exposure through the UO Provost’s Big Ideas call for proposals. Ron
was very effective in initiating a Big Ideas proposal that concisely articulated our ideas coming out of Helen Barrett’s visit
and our February INCEPR meeting.
SNAPSHOT OF RESULTS:
• Students in the computer graphics classes are receptive to learning technology; those in studio find it a
distraction from their core mission. In team-taught studios, compliance varies according to the instructor
attitude.
• Response to reflective questions has varied greatly. Those adept at graphics tend to be less interested in
verbal assignments. Introspective students with poor graphic skills can be much more expressive in writing than
through drawings, models or computer graphics. It helps the instructor to see that students understand
concepts, even though they lack proficiency in generating visual results.
• Google Sites is very accessible and quick to learn, BUT you can’t backup or move the sites and they have a
fixed quota limit! Compared to PBWiki, which I have used for 5 previous classes, Google has not set up a support
infrastructure.
• >> Keep new requirements minimal. Target sharing of artifacts that benefit the whole (i.e. site analysis,
factual design data) Provide strong documentation, support and examples for the eager to excel.
NEXT STEPS
Analysis : Study previous year’s ePortfolios and survey results. Analyze and summarize. Write and submit research
abstracts.
Assessment : Resolve the misalignment between departmental studio evaluation forms, and narrower course evaluation
criteria. Look at how to tie the artifacts to the evaluation. Build on WSU work.
Research : Plan Fall term courses to support interdisciplinary comparison.
Funding : Define areas of potential innovation, find partners, search for funding sources.
Dissemination :
- Highlight top work on ePortfolio site, add students to index.
- Continue dialogue with IS, Honors College.
- Look at creating faculty workshops, building on the AAD efforts.
- Engage Arch Dept colleagues and students about how to foster this effort.

13. Preliminary Year-End Summary
Lori Hager – Assistant Professor, Arts and Administration Program
Primary areas of activity related to building support structures to implement eportfolios department-wide in AAD; liaison
on th ufolio budget; working toward providing some organizational framework, and instituting documentation and
communication structures for the UFolio Group; building relationships with IS; developing national and international
connections and resources; expanding eportfolio applications through workshops for students and increased curricular
and reflective connections; support for documentation and evaluation.
Internship/ePortfolios
Lori Hager, expanded the ways in which students engaged with eportfolios in her Internship course sequence (AAD 610).
Students identify developments in the profession, connect skills and professional objectives to needs in the field. After
this scan, students identify areas for professional development and establish work learning goals that reflect their
professional objectives and academic goals. They conduct research on arts organizations that would provide them
opportunities to advance their skills and goals, and begin to secure a location. From this, they connect their
responsibilities to their work learning goals, with demonstrations of learning that reflect their progress, learning, and
growth.
Connecting Theory to Practice
This year, I increased the digital documentation requirement to more closely align their WLGS and their DOLS through
their eportfolios. Students will develop these in the WPMU environment and during the fall, students will analyze their
development individually and as a group, and from this will create a presentation that reflects how they are constructing
meaning as individuals and as a group relative to their professional objectives and academic goals, how they are
connecting theory to practice, and how they are making adjustments to their academic and professional goals. As a result
of the course, the workshops, and the pilot group, students are taking ownership for their course through creating a
course blog in WPMU that will allow them to document and reflect and experiment with how they are demonstrating their
learning through their eportfolios and their courses, and how they will apply this across their classes.
Enhancing Reflection/Authentic Assessment
Another goal for this year was to expand the reflective component of the eportfolios to include digital storytelling.
Students were offered a workshop in digital storytelling, and as a result are including digital narrative and field journals in
their demonstrations of learning. Additionally, students spontaneously created a digital narrative in their Arts Learning
Policy and Practice (AAD 510) graduate seminar that authentically reflected what they learned through in the course
through each creating a 30-second “elevator speech” of the value of arts education, which we recorded in imovie. This
video will be used as a promotional and advocacy video. This is an example of the ways in which students will authentically
reflect and assess through appropriate structures, and with available tools.
Consultants and Workshops
I was able to support bringing Helen Barret to conduct the Digital Storytelling workshop, and to consult with the group
during a critical time in our development. I sponsored a digital documentation workshop in support of the expanded
reflection and assessment component of the project this year, which was conducted by Dr. John Fenn, current AAD
Adjunct Instructor and next year’s full time Media Management Assistant Professor.
We brought John Ittleson in to consult with us regarding Epsilen, about our project development in general, and about
possible connections with the work that they are doing with eportfolios in California. John was a member of INCEPR
Cohort 3.
Participation in the two INCEPR meetings last year provided a critical context for our development. Most importantly, the
February meeting following on the visit from Helen, convinced us to move into working with WPMU.
Arts and Administration Program
Most importantly, eportfolios is now recognized as critical for our students; development, and will be implemented as
requirement for AAD graduate students starting fall, 2009. The recent hire of John Fenn as the new Media Management

14. faculty, the addition of expert adjunct faculty Scott Huette, who is involved with the eportfolio courses offered through
PODS, as well as support from CC, have provided us with the “tipping point” to institute eportfolios across the AAD
undergraduate and graduate program. Undergraduate students conducting practicum as co-curricular work will engage
with eportfolios; a new course sequence in “Teaching the Arts” will result in artists-as-teachers constructing teaching
eportfolios; faculty will employ it for courses; and students will use it to aggregate their work during their tenure here at
UO. Importantly, students will be employing tools and evaluation structures that they will engage with throughout their
careers, and the evidence will be an “eportfolio” they can take with them where they go.
I conducted informal interviews with students involved with eportfolios, both with the old PLONE-based system, as well
as with WPMU, and will be collating and analyzing this information to inform the development of the system in the fall.
Surveys about student engagement and preparation conducted in the digital documentation workshop, and through CC,
will provide critical evidence for structuring training and support modules for faculty and students. These, along with a
more extensive evaluation of this year’s pilot, will provide the basis for the next term implementation.
UfoliO FINAL REPORT – June 12, 2009
Jonathon Richter, Research Associate, Center for Electronic Studying
Original Proposed Winter and Spring Term 2009 Activities for:
Assist ePort faculty map their curricula (document meetings, journal context, produce maps); work with our group to
establish shared understanding of portfolio processes (faculty developed ePortfolios; create shared resource docs,
terminology, and relationships); assist in the development of artifact descriptions and rubrics (how to measure) for each
program portfolio with context across the ePortfolio group (same when we can, different when we must) -- (artifact
descriptions and rubrics + summary of program alignment/contrast); assist ePortfolio program faculty to create
useability / feedback forms to distribute to students (feedback forms / surveys for program students); assess the
ePortfolio platforms (compare / contrast) in the spring (platform assessment); Lead ePortfolio group to synthesize
feedback gathered by faculty during Spring (pilot summary).
Below is a bulleted summary of my UfoliO involvement and activities Winter/Spring 2009. Also included here are
comments and/or reflections to further detail and enhance activity descriptions. An overall reflection and commentary on
my UfoliO project work for this time period follows this section. Finally, a synthesis of these activities and
accomplishments and their relative alignment with the UfoliO goals to enhance university Student-Centered Learning and
Institutional Assessment efforts concludes the report.
Proposed Activity Description Winter term 2009:
Submit documents from meetings, and curriculum maps, resources documents, artifact descriptions, and rubrics; submit
summary of activities.
Activities and Accomplishments
- Conducted several inservice workshops to participating UfoliO faculty on (a) Curriculum Mapping; (b)
Portfolio Learning; and (c) Assessment for Learning (i.e. formative assessment). Led in comparing and contrasting
faculty program spheres-of-influence, and portfolio audience / outcomes discussions.
- Facilitated curriculum mapping process with faculty to produce documentation of coursework as relates to
curricular artifacts and portfolio teaching and learning.
- Created a web-based shared bookmarking and webnotes group using Diigo and began collecting resources of
potential relevance for the project.
- Attended a portfolio presentation as “guest evaluator” for Nancy Cheng. Feedback document relevant to
portfolio system attached.
- Facilitated UfoliO Project group and Friday Forums with attendees from other campus departments.
Discussions focused on exploring additional ePortfolio systems, Web 2.0 solutions and enhancements.
- Participated in group and individual meetings with Helen Barrett and others on campus to generate support
for developing ePortfolio systems solutions with our core group departments and campus-wide, pursued ongoing
commitment to development through forums and networking with key UO faculty.

15. - Facilitated the UfoliO group on creating a synthesis of beliefs and progress for the I/NCEPR Cohort V meeting
in San Francisco. Wrote the final copy and submitted in time for the meeting.
- Facilitated identification of a common student outcome for all programs currently participating in the
program: “collaboration”. Included exploration of “collaboration” in the semi-structured interviews conducted as a
conclusion to the Portfolio Curriculum Mapping process.
- The collection of program-specific artifacts and development of particular rubrics relevant to portfolios was
postponed until the system prototype for each program could be put in place.
- I worked with other UfoliO project members to establish ePortfolio system/platform criteria which is
documented on the wiki site – this included usability, customization capabilities, portability, and assessment
features. This was used for distilling attributes, functionality, and sustainability for targeted commercial ePortfolio
systems. Members including myself met regularly to establish criteria and then interview potential vendors for field-
testing ePortfolio systems within our departments.
- Attended a day-long workshop at The American Educational Research Association (AERA) on Design-Based
Research (DBR), collecting resources, context, and experience relevant to this DBR project. Note: tuition was paid by
UO's Center for Advanced Technology in Education.
- Following our Cohort V (and Cohort III) meeting/conference in San Francisco, group consensus was to pursue
WPMU and Web 2.0 mash-up tools as an ePortfolio system/platform to pilot with 3 cohorts of students.
- Criteria and goals were established and I was involved/attended and contributed to a series meetings with UO
CC systems and Academic computing heads to establish a pilot test for Spring term.
- Worked closely with Helen Barrett on defining and developing cues and context for reflection in the academic
projects.
Proposed Activity Description End of Spring term: submit feedback forms/surveys developed for students; written
platform assessment overview; written pilot summary.
Activities and Accomplishments
- Collaborated with the UfoliO team in deciding to discontinue the evaluation of “off the shelf” ePortfolio
software because of multiple factors – opting rather to integrate generic tools and develop portfolio teaching and
learning processes into those. Google Apps and WordPress MU were the leading choices. The “written platform
assessment overview” deliverable thus, became a “written portfolio integration overview”.
- Created an initial draft of a student feedback form for WordPress MU users and worked with Computer
Services on deployment.
- Met with UO CC members for detailing pilot requirements, training, usage and feedback mechanisms (RT
reporting). This was very helpful to get started, but response from CC on RT rquests fell way short of expectations.
This was communicated in final meetings with Helen Chu and Micah Sardell.
UfoliO FINAL REPORT
Eric J. Schiff, Adjunct Instructor, AAD
Role: Administration, development, support, and transition of current AAA ePortfolio system; Usability Criteria, Planning,
Field Testing of new ePortfolo system(s);
Evaluation, customization needs assessment of ePortfolio systems; Development, implementation, and teaching support;
standards and rubrics.
Activities and Accomplishments
Below is a bulleted summary of my UfoliO involvement and activities. Also included here are some brief comments and/or
reflections, and. an overall reflection and commentary on my UfoliO project work for this time period follows this section.
Development of A&AA platform and demonstration to faculty. Maintained current Plone ePortfolio system; Worked with
UO CC and A&AA Computer Support to improve secure server access and overall usability of the Plone system; Worked
with Nancy Cheng and ARCH GTFs to develop and make available basic Plone ePortfolio tutorial resources – posted on the
eportfolio.uoregon.edu site.

16. All AAD graduate students had Plone system ePortfolio profile accounts created and populated per with specific content
criteria and hierarchy established, and disseminated to students in AAD Advanced Information Design and Presentation
course. Profiles were made accessible to AAD and other faculty.
UfoliO Project group and Friday Forums - demonstrated eportfollio.uoregon.edu system and work from AAD and ARCH.
Discussions focused on exploring additional ePortfolio systems, Web 2.0 solutions and enhancements.
Meetings with Helen Barret and others on campus to generate support for developing ePortfolio systems solutions with
our core group departments and campus-wide, pursued ongoing commitment to development through forums and
networking with key UO faculty.
Prepared for I/NCEPR CohortV meetings and ePortfoio West Coast Summit conference in SFO to demonstrate our work,
attend workshops and breakout sessions, evaluate and determine future direction of the UfoliO project.
Attended meetings with John Fenn and Lori Hager to develop standards for web published presentation ePortfolios
produced as outcomes of my Spring term AAD Multimedia Presentation and Design course. These were defined and
presented to AAD graduate students at the beginning of Spring term through Blackboard course site.
Curriculum mapping of my three AAD courses was completed as part of the UfoliO project – documents made available on
UfoliO wiki and my WPMU blogsite.
I worked with other UfoliO project members to establish ePortfolio system/platform criteria which is documented on the
wiki site – this included usability, customization capabilities, portability, and assessment features. This was used for
distilling attributes, functionality, and sustainability for targeted commercial ePortfolio systems. Members including myself
met regularly to establish criteria and then interview potential vendors for field-testing ePortfolio systems within our
departments.
Following our Cohort V (and Cohort III) meeting/conference in San Francisco, group consensus was to pursue WPMU and
Web 2.0 mash-up tools as an ePortfolio system/platform to pilot with 3 cohorts of students. Criteria and goals were
established and I was involved/attended and contributed to a series meetings with UO CC systems and Academic
computing heads to establish a pilot test for Spring term. Eric, Ron, and Nancy prepared for the Spring term pilot by
creating demonstration WPMU academic course blogsites and establishing general guidelines for limited student
participation.
My goal for next year is to establish a base set of Rubrics for my courses that align with my curriculum maps. I will
integrate these in the course delivery and individual course project evaluation using my WPMU course blogsites.
Created a scope and sequence for introducing WPMU pilot students to the system, functionality, and user interface.
(Mirrors the introductory AAD WPMU workshop for faculty series outline that I submitted to John Fenn and Lori Hager).
Researched, introduced, and presented case study to both my Spring term course students and AAD pilot cohort, the
concept of Personal Learning Environments (PLEs); integrating ePortfolio systems and Web 2.0 tools and applications for
facilitating, producing, reflecting, and assessing student work. This had high value and was embraced and applied by
students in the WPMU pilot project – evidenced in their WPMU blogsites and specific assignments during the project.
Met twice weekly for hour long sessions with the AAD student pilot cohort to implement WPMU system and Web 2.0 tools
and applications. Agendas and specific ePortfolio systems pilot implementation and student training are detailed on my
WPMU demonstration blogsite in the “Posts” and UfoliO pilot section/pages.
Researched and recommended WPMU plug-ins, themes, widgets, and user interface functionality. Researched and
recommended Web 2.0 tools and applications for faculty/student use in the pilot project – areas of focus were
networking, collaboration, productivity, and communication.

17. Reflections and Recommendations
While formal assessment tools are available for integration and use with the WPMU system, this is an area that our group
will need to address in the near future. I am confident that we will be able to manage an effective solution, and one I am
hoping to implement by Winter term, 2010.
As part of the UfoliO WPMU pilot Spring term, Nancy Cheng, Ron Bramhall, and myself wanted to ensure opportunities to
involve students in “student centered learning and assessment” activities. The concept of PLEs (personal learning
environments) became centric to our project, a core value for designing and implementing our approach and activities
using WPMU and accompanying Web 2.0 tools and applications. This positioning supported our belief that engaging
students to take a level of control of their learning environment by choosing the systems and tools that made sense to
them, while providing a framework for them to employ formative assessment activities to understand the deeper learning
taking place, would be of high value and benefit. Given the varied nature of our pilot cohorts’ courses,
assignments/projects and outcomes would be different for each group. But, we agreed to build the student self-
assessment/reflection framework and prompts around the following: communication, collaboration, and process. I added
a peer feedback component. I was impressed with the detail and focus of student reflections, and the feedback from their
peers. I believe the quality of self-evaluation was higher and carried greater benefit by using these methods and WPMU
tools.
Another observation I made as students undertook this challenge of using the WPMU system, was that they immediately
began querying each other on the process of using Web 2.0 tools and applications that had been introduced, to identify and
cull resources; that they then began working together to understand the process and next steps for networking and sharing
them with each other. These activities reinforced my belief that students got the concept and value of creating PLEs, they
engaged in core tenets of the formative evaluation process we had identified as centric to student-centered learning and
assessment. They presented much more thorough reflections of their work; an understanding of what they learned, how and
why they learned, and where they might improve upon it and/or apply it.
Finally, I believe our UfoliO project group is headed in the right direction. Continued and increased support from the
university is essential for further development and expansion of ePortfolio systems on campus; this being both financially,
and in recognizing and promoting the opportunities and value/benefit for engaging students and faculty in its use. I look
forward to my continued involvement in the UfoliO project next year.
8
[1] The eportfolio platform development community has made significant strides since we began our tiny project
in wordpress four years ago. There are on the market some potential platforms that could be considered for
implementation at UO, however it would take an institutional commitment to make this a viable option. At the
same time that the platform community has reached a level of sophistication, developments in web 2.0/3.0 are
suggesting a more authentic approach to using eportfolios to prepare students to engage as global citizens and
lifelong learners. The trend in eportfolios seems to be moving away from these kinds of portfolio management
systems in favor of implementing processes that are authentic to the way that people live and learn and
communicate in a web 2.0/3.0 world.
[2] Using Wordpress as a Course Management system was very successful. It has the capacity to do most of what Blackboard does with more flexibility, style and continuity across terms. I believe with more work, it could replace or augment Blackboard for many faculty. There
are some challenges. It is not as plug and play as Blackboard. Templates and guides will need to be developed for faculty who don’t want to dig into the technology as much. But this is not any different from any other technology. Most reports are that the bulk of faculty use very
little of the functionality of Blackboard anyway so it seems to be more a question of motivation to use technology than the technology itself. Wordpress has the potential to be no more difficult to use than Blackboard with the right support structures. The challenge is creating the
motivation.