Electronic Portfolio Encouraging Active and Reflective Learning

  • Philip C. Abrami
  • Eva M. Bures
  • Einat Idan
  • Elizabeth Meyer
  • Vivek Venkatesh
  • Anne Wade
Part of the Springer International Handbooks of Education book series (SIHE, volume 28)


At the Centre for the Study of Learning and Performance we have developed, tested, and disseminated to schools without charge, an Electronic Portfolio Encouraging Active and Reflective Learning (ePEARL). ePEARL is designed to be faithful to predominant models of self-regulation, scaffolding and supporting learners and their educators from grade one (level one) through grade twelve and beyond (level four). ePEARL encourages learners to engage in the cyclical phases and sub-phases of forethought, performance, and self-reflection. In a series of studies, including two longitudinal quasi-experiments, we have explored the positive impacts of ePEARL on the enhancement of students’ self-regulated learning skills, their literacy skills and changes in teaching, while simultaneously researching classroom implementation fidelity and teacher professional development. This chapter briefly explains the development of ePEARL, our research program, and issues in the scalability and sustainability of knowledge tools.


Literacy Skill Implementation Fidelity Authentic Assessment Electronic Portfolio Strategic Learner 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.


  1. Abrami, P. C. (2010). On the nature of support in computer-supported collaborative learning using gStudy. Computers in Human Behavior, 26, 835–839. doi: 10.1016/j.chb.2009.04.007.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Abrami, P. C., & Barrett, H. (2005). Directions for research and development on electronic portfolios. Canadian Journal of Learning and Technology, 31(3), 1–15. Retrieved February 1, 2013 from Scholar
  3. Abrami, P. C., Bernard, R. M., Bures, E. M., Borokhovski, E., & Tamim, R. (2011). Interaction in distance education and online learning: Using evidence and theory to improve practice. Journal of Computing in Higher Education. doi: 10.1007/s12528-011-9043-x.
  4. Abrami, P. C., Venkatesh, V., Meyer, E., & Wade, A., (in press). Using electronic portfolios to foster literacy and self regulated learning skills in elementary students. Journal of Educational Psychology.Google Scholar
  5. Barrett, H. (2007). Researching electronic portfolios and learner engagement: The REFLECT initiative. Journal of Adolescent and Adult Literacy, 50(6), 436–449.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Bures, E., Abrami, P., & Bentley, C. (2007). Assessing electronic portfolios—Now that we have them, what can we do with them? In G. Richards (Ed.), Proceedings of World Conference on E-Learning in Corporate, Government, Healthcare, and Higher Education 2007 (pp. 7030–7038). Chesapeake, VA: AACE.Google Scholar
  7. Bures, E., Barclay, A., Abrami, P. C., Meyer, E., & Venkatesh, V. (2012). Contextualizing assessment: Students demonstrating and developing literacy and self-regulated learning skills through electronic portfolios (Manuscript submitted for publication).Google Scholar
  8. Carbonara, D. (2005). Technology literacy applications in learning environments. Hershey, PA: Idea Group Publishing.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Carney, J. (2005). What kind of electronic portfolio research do we need? Paper presented at the Society for Information Technology and Teacher Education International Conference, Phoenix, AZ.Google Scholar
  10. Frey, B., & Schmitt, V. (2007). Coming to terms with classroom assessment. Journal of Advanced Academics, 18(3), 402–423. doi: 10.4219/jaa-2007-495.Google Scholar
  11. Gouvernement du Québec. (2001). Quebec Education ProgramEnglish version. Retrieved February 1, 2013 from Ministère de l’Éducation website:
  12. Herman, J. L., Gearhart, M., & Baker, E. L. (1993). Assessing writing portfolios: Issues in the validity and meaning of scores. Educational Assessment, 1(3), 201–224. doi: 10.1207/s15326977ea0103_2.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Herrington, J., Reeves, T., Oliver, R., & Woo, Y. (2004). Designing authentic activities in web-based courses. Journal of Computing in Higher Education, 16(1), 3–29. doi: 10.1007/BF02960280.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. McClelland, D. C., Atkinson, J. W., Clark, R. A., & Lowell, E. L. (1953). The achievement motive. New York: Appleton.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Meyer, E., Abrami, P. C., Wade, A., Aslan, O., & Deault, L. (2010). Improving literacy and metacognition with electronic portfolios: Teaching and learning with ePEARL. Computers in Education, 55, 84–91. doi: 10.1016/j.compedu.2009.12.005.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Meyer, E., Abrami, P. C., Wade, A., & Scherzer, R. (2011). Electronic portfolios in the classroom: Factors impacting teachers’ integration of new technologies and new pedagogies. Technology, Pedagogy and Education, 20(2), 191–207.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Meyer, E., Wade, A., Pillay, V., Idan, E., & Abrami, P. C. (2010). Using electronic portfolios to foster communication in K-12 classrooms. In C. Black (Ed.), The dynamic classroom: Engaging students in higher education (pp. 125–133). Madison, WI: Atwood Publishing.Google Scholar
  18. Pintrich, P. R. (2003). A motivational science perspective on the role of student motivation in learning and teaching contexts. Journal of Educational Psychology, 95, 667–686. doi: 10.1037/0022-0663.95.4.667.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Rogers, D., & Swan, K. (2004). Self-regulated learning and internet searching. Teachers College Record, 106, 1804–1824.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Seligman, M. E. P. (1975). Helplessness: On depression, development and death. San Francisco: W.H. Freeman.Google Scholar
  21. Stiggins, R. J. (2002). Assessment crisis: The absence of assessment FOR learning. Phi Delta Kappan, 83, 758–765.Google Scholar
  22. Upitis, R., Abrami, P. C., Brook, J., Troop, M., & Varela, W. (2010, November). Using ePEARL for music teaching: A case study. Paper presented at the International Association for the Scientific Knowledge conference, Oviedo, Spain.Google Scholar
  23. Weiner, B. (1980). Human motivation. New York: Holt-Rinehart and Winston.Google Scholar
  24. Wozney, L., Venkatesh, V., & Abrami, P. C. (2006). Implementing computer technologies: Teachers’ perceptions and practices. Journal of Technology and Teacher Education, 14(1), 173–207. Retrieved February 1, 2013 from Scholar
  25. Zeichner, K., & Wray, S. (2001). The teaching portfolio in US teacher education programs: What we know and what we need to know. Teaching and Teacher Education, 17, 613–621. doi: 10.1016/S0742-051X(01)00017-8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Zimmerman, B. J. (1989). A social cognitive view of self-regulated academic learning. Journal of Educational Psychology, 81, 329–339.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Zimmerman, B. J. (2000). Attaining self-regulation: A social cognitive perspective. In M. Boekaerts & P. R. Pintrich (Eds.), Handbook of self-regulation (pp. 13–39). New York: Academic.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Zimmerman, B. J. (2008). Investigating self-regulation and motivation: Historical background, methodological developments, and future prospects. American Educational Research Journal, 45(1), 166–183. doi: 10.3102/0002831207312909.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media New York 2013

Authors and Affiliations

  • Philip C. Abrami
    • 1
  • Eva M. Bures
    • 2
  • Einat Idan
    • 1
  • Elizabeth Meyer
    • 3
  • Vivek Venkatesh
    • 1
  • Anne Wade
    • 1
  1. 1.Centre for the Study of Learning and PerformanceConcordia UniversityMontrealCanada
  2. 2.Centre for the Study of Learning and PerformanceBishop’s University School of EducationLennoxvilleCanada
  3. 3.School of Education, California Polytechnic State UniversitySan Luis ObispoUSA

Personalised recommendations