Information Systems Frontiers

, Volume 14, Issue 2, pp 395–407 | Cite as

Organizational schemata of e-portfolios for fostering higher-order thinking

  • Shouhong WangEmail author
  • Hai Wang


The information technology of online e-portfolio systems have been widely used during the past several years along with the diffusion of electronic teaching-learning systems. However, for the time being e-portfolio is viewed more as an assessment tool or a showcase tool, but less as an active learning tool. The current generic e-portfolio systems store artifacts in the chronological order on the course basis, providing few facets for active thinking. The question of how we can make e-portfolio a useful learning tool to improve students’ learning outcomes is still open to research. Among various students’ learning outcomes, higher-order thinking has become an important outcome of education. One vision of education evolution is to change the modes of thinking of students. This study is to meet the challenge of e-portfolios by investigating a significant research question: how e-portfolios can be used as a learning tool for students to foster higher-order thinking. Specifically, this study proposes an ontological approach to organizational schema of e-portfolios so that e-portfolios can be logically and dynamically organized into thinking-driven networks. The ontological schemata can serve as visible maps for the virtual e-portfolios repository shared by all teachers and students to foster higher-order thinking. A case study that implements a prototype of organizational schemata of e-portfolios demonstrates the usefulness of the proposed approach for fostering higher-order thinking.


Semantic Web System analysis and design User-computer interface Object-oriented E-portfolio Higher-order thinking Ontology E-learning Learning objects Business education Information systems education 



The comments of two anonymous reviewers have contributed significantly to the revision of this paper.


  1. AACSB. (2003). Eligibility procedures and standards for business accreditation, Association to Advance Collegiate Schools of Business (AACSB) International, [Retrieved March 14, 2010 from].
  2. Annis (Ferrill), L., & Jones, C. (1995). Student portfolios: Their objectives, development, and use. In P. Seldin & Associates (Eds.), Improving college teaching (pp. 181–190). Boston: Anker.Google Scholar
  3. Argyris, C., & Schon, D. A. (1988). Organizational learning. In D. S. Pugh (Ed.), Organization theory selected readings (pp. 352–370). New York: Penguin.Google Scholar
  4. Barolli, L., Koyama, A., Durresi, A., & De Marco, G. (2006). A web-based e-learning system for increasing study efficiency of stimulating learner’s motivation. Information Systems Frontiers, 8, 297–306.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Barrett, H. C. (1994). Technology-supported assessment portfolios. The Computing Teacher, 21, 9–12.Google Scholar
  6. Batterbee, L., & Dunham, A. (2004). Four years of reflection: The digital portfolio project at Albion College. In J. Zubizarreta (Ed.), The learning portfolio: Reflective practice for improving student learning (pp. 59–63). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.Google Scholar
  7. Bloom, B. S. (Ed.). (1956). Taxonomy of educational objectives: The classification of educational goals, Handbook I: Cognitive domain. Green: Longmans.Google Scholar
  8. Boland, R. J., & Collopy, F. (Eds.). (2004). Managing as designing. Stanford: Stanford University Press.Google Scholar
  9. Bruder, I. (1993). Alternative assessment: Putting technology to the test. Electronic Learning, 12, 12–28.Google Scholar
  10. Bushweller, K. (1995). The high-tech portfolio. The Executive Educator, 17, 19–22.Google Scholar
  11. Carchiolo, V., Longheu, A., Malgeri, M., & Mangioni, G. (2007). A model for a web-based learning system. Information Systems Frontiers, 9, 267–282.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Cohen, E., & Nycz, M. (2006). Learning objects e-learning: An informing science perspective. Interdisciplinary Journal of Knowledge and Learning Objects, 2, 23–24.Google Scholar
  13. Collis, B., & Strijker, A. (2003). Re-usable learning objects in context. International Journal on E-Learning, 2(4), 5–16.Google Scholar
  14. CW (2010). Chalk & Wire, [Retrieved March 14, 2010 from].
  15. DC (2010). Dublin core metadata initiative, [Retrieved March 14, 2010 from].
  16. Devedzic, V. (2004). Education and the semantic web. International Journal of Artificial Intelligence in Education, 14, 39–65.Google Scholar
  17. Drier, H. N. (1997). Career portfolios — don’t leave home without one. Career Planning & Adult Development Journal, 12(4), 55–60.Google Scholar
  18. Dunne, D., & Martin, R. (2006). Design thinking and how it will change management education: An interview and discussion. Academy of Management Learning & Education, 5(4), 512–523.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Eliot, J. (1987). Models of psychological space: Psychometric, developmental, and experimental approaches. New York: Springer-Verlag.Google Scholar
  20. Ericsson, K. A., & Smith, J. (1991). Toward a general theory of expertise: Prospects and limits. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  21. Eysenck, M. W. (1993). Principles of cognitive psychology. Hillsdale: Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  22. foliotek (2010). foliotek e-portfolio system, [Retrieved March 5, 2010 from].
  23. Greenberg, G. (2004). The digital convergence: Extending the portfolio. Educause Review, 39(4), 28–36.Google Scholar
  24. Gregor, S. (2006). The nature of theory in information systems. MIS Quarterly, 30(3), 611–635.Google Scholar
  25. Gruber, T. (1993). A translation approach to portable ontology specifications. Knowledge Acquisition, 5(2), 199–220.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Gruber, T. (1995). Toward principles for the design of ontologies used for knowledge sharing. International Journal of Human Computer Studies, 43(5/6), 907–928.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Guarino, N. (1995). Formal ontology, conceptual analysis and knowledge representation. International Journal of Human Computer Studies, 43(5/6), 625–640.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Harman, K., & Koohang, A. (2005). Discussion board: A learning object. Interdisciplinary Journal of Knowledge and Learning Objects, 1, 67–77.Google Scholar
  29. Hevner, A. R., March, S. T., Park, J., & Ram, S. (2004). Design science in information system research. MIS Quarterly, 28(1), 75–105.Google Scholar
  30. Hjorland, B., & Albrechtsen, H. (1995). Toward a new horizon in information science: Domain analysis. Journal of the American Society for Information Science, 46(6), 400–425.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. IEEE LTSC (2010). IEEE learning technology standards committee. [Retrieved March 15, 2010 from].
  32. IMS (2006). IMS Meta-data Best Practice Guide for IEE 1484.12.1-2002 Standard for Learning Object Metadata Version 1.3 Final Specification. [Retrieved March 13, 2010, from].
  33. Jenkins, E. K. (1998). The significant role of critical thinking in predicting auditing student’s performance. Journal of Education for Business, 73, 274–279.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Jones, D., & Gregor, S. (2007). The anatomy of a design theory. Journal of the Association for Information Systems, 8(5), 312–335.Google Scholar
  35. KEEP (2010). KEEP toolkit, [Retrieved March 15, 2010 from].
  36. Kida, T. (2006). Don’t believe everything you think: The 6 basic mistakes we make in thinking. Amherst: Prometheus Books.Google Scholar
  37. Kim, D. H. (1993). The link between individual and organizational learning. Sloan Management Review, 35(1), 37–50.Google Scholar
  38. Kirkwood, M. (2000). Infusing higher-order thinking and learning to learn into content instruction: A case study of secondary computing studies in Scotland. Journal of Curriculum Studies, 32(4), 509–535.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Koohang, A. (2004). Creating learning objects in collaborative e-learning settings. Issues in Information Systems, 4(2), 584–590.Google Scholar
  40. Kurfiss, J. G. (1988). Critical thinking: Theory, research, practice, and possibilities. ASHE-ERIC Higher Education Report No.2, ASHE, Washington, DC.Google Scholar
  41. Lumsden, J. A., Garis, J. W., Reardon, R. C., Unger, M. P., & Arkin, S. (2001). A blueprint for building an online career portfolio. Journal of Career Planning and Employment, 62(1), 33–38.Google Scholar
  42. McCowan, C., Harper, W., & Hauville, K. (2005). Student e-portfolio: The successful implementation of an e-portfolio across a major Australian university. Australian Journal of Career Development, 14(2), 40–52.Google Scholar
  43. Mustaro, P. N., & Silveira, I. F. (2006). Learning objects: Adaptive retrieval through learning styles. Interdisciplinary Journal of Knowledge and Learning Objects, 2, 35–46.Google Scholar
  44. Myers, I. B. (1962). Introduction to type: A description of the theory and applications of the Myers-Briggs type indicator. Palo Alto: Consulting Psychologists Press.Google Scholar
  45. Namuth, D., Fritz, S., King, J., & Boren, A. (2005). Principles of sustainable learning object libraries. Interdisciplinary Journal of Knowledge and Learning Objects, 1, 181–196.Google Scholar
  46. OSP (2005). Open-Source Portfolio, White paper: Understanding OSP. [Retrieved March 15, 2010 from].
  47. OWL (2010). Web Ontology Language (OWL), [Retrieved March 12, 2010 from].
  48. Page, D., & Mukherjee, A. (2007). Promoting critical-thinking skills by using negotiation exercises. Journal of Education for Business, 82, 251–257.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Peach, B. E., Mukherjee, A., & Hornyak, M. (2007). Assessing critical thinking: A college’s journey and lessons learned. Journal of Education for Business, 82, 313–320.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Peirce, C. S. P. (1997). Pragmatism as a principle and method of right thinking. In P. A. Turrisi (Ed.), The 1903 Harvard lectures on pragmatism. Albany: State University of New York Press.Google Scholar
  51. Perkins, D., Jay, E., & Tishman, S. (1993a). Introduction: New conceptions of thinking. Educational Psychologist, 28(1), 1–5.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Perkins, D., Jay, E., & Tishman, S. (1993b). New conceptions of thinking: From ontology to education. Educational Psychologist, 28(1), 67–85.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Plous, S. (1993). The psychology of judgment and decision making. New York: McGraw-Hill.Google Scholar
  54. Prieto-Diaz, R. (1990). Domain analysis: An introduction. ACM SIGSOFT Software Engineering Notes, 15(2), 47–54.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. Quillian, R. (1968). Semantic memory. In M. Minsky (Ed.), Semantic information processing. Cambridge: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  56. Ritchhart, R. (2002). Intellectual character: What it is, why it matters, and how to get it. San Francisco: Jossey Bass.Google Scholar
  57. Senge, P. M. (1990). The fifth discipline: The art and practice of the learning organization. New York: Currency/Doubleday.Google Scholar
  58. Senge, P. M. (1996). Systems thinking. Executive Excellence, 13(1), 15–16.Google Scholar
  59. Shen, L., Callaghan, V., & Shen, R. (2008). Affective e-learning in residential and pervasive computing environments. Information Systems Frontiers, 10(4), 461–472.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. Sicilia, M. A., & Lytras, M. (2005). On the representation of change according to different ontologies of learning. International Journal of Learning and Change, 1(1), 66–79.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  61. Simon, H. A. (1976). Administrative behavior (3rd ed.). New York: The Free Press.Google Scholar
  62. Simon, H. A. (1996). The sciences of the artificial (3rd ed.). Cambridge: The MIT Press.Google Scholar
  63. Singh, G., Hawkins, L., & Whymark, G. (2007). An integrated model of collaborative knowledge building. Interdisciplinary Journal of Knowledge and Learning Objects, 3, 85–105.Google Scholar
  64. Smrz, P. (2004). Integrating ontologies into learning management systems — A case of Czech. In R. Meersman, Z. Tari & A. Corsaro, OTM Workshops, LNCS 3292, 768–772.Google Scholar
  65. Snae, C., & Brueckner, M. (2007). Ontology-driven e-learning system based on roles and activities for Thai learning environment. Interdisciplinary Journal of Knowledge and Learning Objects, 3, 1–17.Google Scholar
  66. TaskStream (2010). TaskStream e-portfolio system, [Retrieved March 12, 2010 from].
  67. Thurston, E. K. (2000). Enabling systems thinking in the “Mesonic Millennium”: The need for systemic methodologies for conceptual learning in undergraduate management education. Journal of Management Education, 24(1), 10–31.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  68. Walls, J. G., Widmeyer, G. R., & El Sawy, O. A. (1992). Building an information design theory for vigilant EIS. Information Systems Research, 3(1), 36–59.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  69. Wang, S. (1999a). Analyzing business information systems: An object-oriented approach. Boca Raton: CRC Press.Google Scholar
  70. Wang, S. (1999b). Organizational memory information system: A domain analysis in the object-oriented paradigm. Information Resources Management Journal, 12(2), 26–35.Google Scholar
  71. Wang, S. (2008). Ontology of learning objects repository for educational knowledge sharing. Interdisciplinary Journal of Knowledge and Learning Objects, 4, 1–12.Google Scholar
  72. Warnick, B., & Inch, E. S. (1994). Critical thinking and communication (2nd ed.). New York: Macmillan.Google Scholar
  73. Wiley, D. A. (2000). Learning object design and sequencing theory, Unpublished PhD Thesis, Brigham Young University, 2000.Google Scholar
  74. Wiley, D. A., & Edwards, E. K. (2002). Online self-organizing social systems: The decentralized future of online learning. Quarterly Review of Distance Education, 3(1), 33–46.Google Scholar
  75. W3C (2010). World Wide Web Consortium, [Retrieved March 18, 2010 from].
  76. Zhang, D., & Nunamaker, J. F. (2003). Powering e-learning in the new millennium: An overview of e-learning and enabling technology. Information Systems Frontiers, 5(2), 207–218.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  77. Zhang, S. X., Olfman, L., & Rectham, P. (2007). Designing eportfolio 2.0: Integrating and coordinating web 2.0 services with eportfolio systems for enhancing users’ learning. Journal of Information Systems Education, 18(2), 203–214.Google Scholar
  78. Zouaq, A., Nkambou, R., & Frasson, C. (2007). An integrated approach for automatic aggregation of learning knowledge objects. Interdisciplinary Journal of Knowledge and Learning Objects, 3, 135–162.Google Scholar
  79. Zubizarreta, J. (2004). The learning portfolio: Reflective practice for improving student learning. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC 2010

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.University of Massachusetts DartmouthNorth DartmouthUSA
  2. 2.Saint Mary’s UniversityHalifaxCanada

Personalised recommendations