International Journal of ePortfolio 2016, Volume 6, Number 2, 71-84 http://www.theijep.com ISSN 2157-622X How Authors and Readers of ePortfolios Make Collaborative Meaning Ruth Benander and Brenda Refaei University of Cincinnati Blue Ash College This article reports on a case study, using a think-aloud approach (Boren & Ramey, 2000; Jaspers, Steen, van den Bos & Geenen, 2004; Kilsdonk et al., 2016), to investigate how different types of audiences interpret ePortfolios. During recorded viewing, students, instructors, and business professionals narrated their experience of reading two ePortfolios. Consistent with findings by Conrad and Bowie (2006), Ramirez (2011), and Gallagher and Poklop (2014), interpretation of an ePortfolio’s purpose varied depending on the audience reading the ePortfolio. Navigation through the ePortfolio was most consistent across all 3 groups, with participants interpreting the navigation menu order as a recommendation of reading order by the author of the ePortfolio. Motivation to continue reading, interpretation of personalization, and perception of reflective writing also varied depending on the audience reading the ePortfolio. This study provides evidence that an important element of teaching students how to build an ePortfolio is awareness of the purpose of the portfolio and the intended audience. In addition, the responses of the 3 different audiences suggest that multi-purpose ePortfolios may not be as successful in engaging audiences as targeted, single purpose ePortfolios. ePortfolios in the 21st century address the new ePortfolio should include. Gallagher and Poklop (2014) necessity for students to communicate through digital interviewed eighteen students and six instructors over a rhetoric (Clark, 2010; Yancey, 2009). ePortfolio 3-year period and analyzed eighteen students’ practice, both as pedagogy and technology, answers this ePortfolios to investigate the students’ challenge by offering a digital space where students conceptualization and responsiveness to perceived compose digital artifacts, negotiate with multiple audiences. They identified three key rhetorical moves audiences, and develop digital identities. Current that supported multiple audience needs, which included research indicates that these skills contribute to the clear design and navigation, context for artifacts, and strength of ePortfolios in assessment, reflection, and use of multiple voices. knowledge integration, although more empirical studies In this study, we extend the work of Gallagher and of effectiveness are needed (Bryant & Chittum, 2013; Poklop (2014) by looking at three different groups of Chertoff, 2015). Specifically, Rhodes, Chen, Watson, readers, keeping the ePortfolios as a constant, and and Garrison (2014) called for further research in focusing on how each group navigated the ePortfolio and ePortfolios that includes both quantitative and created meaning from it. To explore how specific qualitative methodologies to explore ePortfolios’ audiences read ePortfolios, we asked students, faculty impact with multiple stakeholders such as employers, as members, and business professionals to read the same well as students and instructors. This study seeks to two ePortfolios. The findings from this comparative address this call by examining how three different study inform how we help our students create more audiences approach reading ePortfolios using a think- effective ePortfolios for different audiences and aloud method to illustrate how they negotiate the design purposes. Instructors need to help students understand of a portfolio and make meaning from what they see. the key rhetorical moves needed to accommodate reader Ramirez (2011) observed that the audience can styles, which will allow students to establish their ethos actively influence the creation of the portfolio. In order for both academic and professional audiences. to move beyond intuition concerning what is effective for ePortfolio readers, evidence from a range of reader Literature Review experiences in comparable contexts could be helpful. Fortunately, the present literature on how different Although ePortfolios have been used for years, they are audiences read ePortfolios is moving towards more still an emerging genre that defies easy definition (Batson, evidence based recommendations. Conrad and Bowie 2015). In defining genre, Swales (2009) wrote, “The work (2006) studied the experiences of ePortfolio readers of genre is to mediate between social situations and texts through interviews with six readers showing distinct that respond strategically to the exigencies of those differences in the ways the ePortfolios were read, situations” (p. 14). If ePortfolios are the “texts,” what are the depending on the purpose of the ePortfolio. Lievens “social situations” to which they respond? Two common (2014) examined career ePortfolios. His study focused situations are to find employment and to document learning, on the literature on labor market economics as well as each of which requires different texts or ePortfolios to human resource management to outline what the achieve their respective purposes. Benander and Refaei Collaborative Meaning 72 A general description of an ePortfolio is ePortfolios. Their analysis of 18 first-year students’ ePortfolios suggests that students have difficulty a digital collection of authentic and diverse making sophisticated choices among the new evidence, drawn from a larger archive, that rhetorical tools available to them to meet the represents what a person has learned over time, on expectations of different audiences in one ePortfolio. which the person has reflected, designed for Gallagher and Poklop (2014) reported that instructors presentation to one or more audiences for a were conceptualizing audience in new ways as they particular rhetorical purpose. (National Learning, adopted ePortfolio pedagogy in their first-year writing 2003, as cited in Cambridge, 2008b) courses. Instructors reported that students saw the teachers, and possibly fellow students, as the primary The key element of this definition is that the audience for their ePortfolios. Some instructors ePortfolio is “designed for presentation to one or indicated that using ePortfolios allowed them to more audiences for a particular rhetorical purpose.” increase their attention to audiences beyond the This specification suggests that one text or classroom and away from just the instructor and peers. ePortfolio can be used for different rhetorical Students were able to recognize a more general mass purposes. It also implies that ePortfolio creators are audience for their ePortfolios and tried to meet the aware of these audiences and are able to make needs of both an unfamiliar reader and familiar reader rhetorical choices to achieve a particular purpose with one ePortfolio. Some students were able to with each one. successfully negotiate these two audiences’ needs by In addition to considering the correct rhetorical designing clear navigation for each type of audience, choices for particular audiences, ePortfolio creators explaining connections between the artifacts, and must keep in mind that ePortfolios require a different using appropriate voice for different audiences. type of reading or viewing than traditional texts. The However, more often than not, students experienced reader navigates the text using links and encounters what Gallagher and Poklop (2014) termed audience other elements, such as images, videos, and audio interference, where students were not able to meet the files. Fitzgibbons (2008), in her discussion of differing needs of different audiences within their hypertext theory for reading, presents primary ePortfolio. In these instances, students did not navigation strategies of readers as linear, mixed, and conceive of the audience as a particular set of readers. mixed review. Her discussion focused on Some students had difficulty repurposing work done hyperlinking, but it would seem that this could also for a class for a more general audience. apply to readers’ choices in navigating ePortfolios. Conrad and Bowie (2006) studied different ePortfolios are distinct from hypertexts, but the portfolio readers’/viewers’ perceptions. In this nature of ePortfolio navigation may be similar to the study three staff members, not closely related to choices readers make while reading hypertexts coaching portfolios, and three mentors, who worked because they use the navigation of ePortfolio as links closely with students creating portfolios, were that lead to text choices. Brown (2015) suggested interviewed concerning their experiences with that general readers in digital spaces expect a summative and formative teaching portfolios. The blending of videos, images, and sounds, as well as principal focus of the study was on the relationship intuitive navigation. Brown (2015) identified some of reading context and audience on assessment of a of the rhetorical choices available in an ePortfolio: portfolio. All participants commented on the “placement of content, and the ability to conflict of summative and formative constructions communicate via image, color, movement, and sound appearing in the same portfolio. They suggested are as important to making meaning as the that the audiences of these two forms read the alphabetic” (p. 335). She asserted that as students portfolios with different expectations for how to construct their ePortfolios, they “are not only deal with showing development or mastery. The creating content—they are constructing their ethos analysis of the interviews showed that the staff and using an entirely new set of rhetorical tools, and the mentors interpreted the artifacts of teaching boundaries between how they portray their work and portfolios differently. For example, the staff readers how they portray themselves are blurred” (Brown, were more interested in evidence that showed 2015, p. 337). An ePortfolio—more than other mastery of teaching, and the mentor readers were traditional academic genres—blends students’ interested in the teaching reflections and looked for personae into the representation of their learning. a breadth of evidence and an understanding of what Where Brown (2015) pointed out the affordances quality teaching is. Conrad and Bowie (2006) of ePortfolios, Gallagher and Poklop (2014) provided concluded that these portfolios highlight the tension empirical evidence of how effectively students are between demonstrating formative development and able to achieve their rhetorical purpose in their presenting summative evidence of mastery since Benander and Refaei Collaborative Meaning 73 different readers were guided by the expectations of ignoring the greater digital context in which the work is one purpose or the other. placed?” It is possible that audience awareness may In another reading experience study by Quinlan need to be more foregrounded for students so they can (2001), readers participated in a think-aloud interview consider audience needs, including what information to protocol. Participants all read the same ePortfolio and provide and in what format. Cambridge (2008b) narrated their experience and judgments as they read. presented competing ideas for a professional ePortfolio, Quinlan (2001) observed that participants read the involving a focused career ePortfolio and a “symphonic ePortfolios linearly, looking at each piece of evidence self,” a more holistic presentation of digital identity. as it was presented by the author. Quinlan (2001) noted, Cambridge (2008b) did acknowledge that “improving “The readers’ linear progression through the documents employability while simultaneously critiquing does not suggest a search for particular pieces of employability seems to put an ePortfolio to work on information to confirm or disconfirm hypotheses” (p. contradictory purposes” (p. 257). These multiple 1047). These readers all expected the evidence to show purposes and multiple audiences create a complex mastery of skills, and the linear approach appears to be challenge for ePortfolio builders and those who are an expectation that the author may have ordered the teaching students to build ePortfolios. ePortfolio to fulfill this expectation. In addition to this As an example of how ePortfolio authors have expectation, additional contextual knowledge, such as negotiated this challenge, in the Minnesota ePortfolio the reader’s knowledge of the author and the author’s project, Minnesota State Colleges and Universities departmental affiliation, contributed to the readers’ (MnSCU) opened up an ePortfolio platform for the judgments. The ePortfolio was interpreted to be general public (Cambridge, 2008a). In survey supplemental evidence to support readers’ previous responses, the users of this platform indicated that they knowledge of the author. more often used the ePortfolio for educational planning, Lievens (2014) contributed to the discussion with a while employer directed ePortfolios were more often theoretical discussion of how career ePortfolios can presented for second contact experiences rather than as contribute to students participating more competitively introductions. These respondents seem to have had a in an increasingly challenging labor market. He wrote clear perception that one ePortfolio is not sufficient for that career ePortfolios can help students demonstrate multiple audiences. In fact, each distinct audience may their mastery of job specific skills, thus highlighting have highly different needs. To best address these their potential fit for specific employers. Lievens (2014) different needs, Yancey et al. (2013) suggested that cited a study in the Netherlands that underscored issues ePortfolio authors must consider the different methods affecting this utility. Most importantly, employers and of coherence that might affect the reader. They also employees need to share expectations about what skills suggest that part of what guides choices to create are required for a job. In addition, many employers coherence is the “web-sensibility” of the reader. The already have specific instruments to evaluate previous website experiences of the reader may change applicants, so the ePortfolio would need to be how the reader perceives the coherence of the incorporated into existing assessments. Lievens (2014) ePortfolio reading experience. also mentioned that questions of credibility and validity The literature on ePortfolio reading strategies and of information in the career ePortfolios need to be audience interaction suggest that the audience is a key addressed so that they may be accepted as reliable stakeholder in ePortfolio design at all levels. The reader’s documentation of skills mastery. It is possible that the previous experience, purpose, genre expectations, and growth of digital badging (e.g., Peck, Bowan, Rimland, perceptions of the author’s ethos all influence how a & Oberdick, 2016) may be one way to address this reader makes meaning from an ePortfolio. Given this problem of credibility. multitude of considerations, it is important to compare In their in-depth analysis of one student’s and contrast different readers to understand the range of ePortfolio, Yancey, McElroy, and Powers (2013) noted choices readers make. Understanding these choices can that the author, Kristina, did not provide readers with help authors make more effective choices in designing directions on how to approach reading her ePortfolio. ePortfolios for multiple audiences, or multiple They suggested that the navigational scheme instead ePortfolios for different audiences. guides readers. Kristina offered readers brief introductions to her artifacts but did not provide an The Study overall reflective document to guide readers in how to approach reading her ePortfolio. Her design caused This study sought to address the question of how Yancey et al. (2013) to question “What rhetorical different audiences employ strategies to read/view an moves—thinking here of addressing specific ePortfolio. Reading an ePortfolio is distinct from audiences—count as powerfully addressing audience, reading a traditional text because the individual and what count as negatively limiting audience, participating with multi-modal text is making meaning Benander and Refaei Collaborative Meaning 74 from not only the alphabetic text, but also the structural the same image to compare how each participant arrangements of different kinds of text, such as interpreted the same information. Another study similar navigation, and the interaction of text and graphic to our use of the think-aloud approach was conducted by elements or even text as a graphic element (e.g., Wright and Monk (1991), who used the think-aloud Freebody & Luke, 1990; Sarafini, 2012). Recognizing approach with software users to evaluate user-interface that ePortfolio “reading” is not the same as reading a design. In this study, we were interested in how traditional text, in this study we choose to use reader in ePortfolio readers both interpreted the ePortfolio and the sense of a reader/viewer using a “mixed set of reacted to the design of the ePortfolio. Participants’ reading practices” (Yancey et al., 2013, p. 9). perceptions help us to theorize about the exigencies for The research question of reader strategies evolved the emerging genre of ePortfolios. Through the analysis from the growing emphasis at our university concerning of the participants’ reading of the ePortfolios, as ePortfolios for employers as well as for instructors and communicated in their think-aloud sessions, we construct assessors. In order to understand how each audience an explanation of how audience and purpose affect the might read an ePortfolio, we identified three types of way readers make meaning through interacting with key readers. Professionals would provide insights into ePortfolios that can guide instructors in their work with how local businesses professionals might read students as they create those ePortfolios. ePortfolios for hiring purposes. Instructors could describe ways in which ePortfolios could be read in Context educational contexts. Students could describe how they would read ePortfolios of their peers. These multiple We conducted our research in a suburb of a large audiences might require different rhetorical approaches. metropolitan area at a regional college of a public U.S. We wanted to document the needs of different research university. At our college, ePortfolios are audiences to understand how ePortfolio instruction beginning to be used more widely. Currently, the might need to vary so that students can best appeal to English and Communication Department, and the different audiences. Business and Economics Department are beginning to use ePortfolios for course and program assessment. Case Study Approach Instructors teaching natural science first-year experience courses are considering using ePortfolios, as Since we wanted to develop an understanding of well. As a result, instructors have mixed experience on how various audiences read/view ePortfolios, we our campus with the use of ePortfolios. Students often designed a case study project using the think-aloud experience their first exposure to ePortfolios in their practice (Bogden & Biklen, 2007; Jaspers, Steen, van English composition courses, where ePortfolios are den Bos, & Geenen, 2004; Kilsdonk, Peute, Riezebos, most widely used for course and program assessment. Kremer, & Jaspers, 2016). The case study method is Instructors in the English and Communication best suited to help answer our research question of how department are most familiar with ePortfolios, and readers make meaning from ePortfolios (e.g., Gallagher instructors in other departments are becoming more & Poklop, 2014). Yin (2008) argued that a case study aware of how ePortfolios can be used as interest rises. should be used when a “‘how’ or ‘why’ question is The campus Learning and Teaching Center sponsors being asked about a contemporary set of events, over ePortfolio development Faculty Learning Communities which a researcher has little or no control” (p. 14). We (FLCs) and workshops on a regular basis. However, in used a think-aloud practice to learn participants’ the larger metropolitan area, ePortfolios are uncommon perspectives on ePortfolios as they engaged with them. in business hiring processes. Boren and Ramey (2000) indicated that this practice Our research focused on the experiences of of asking the participant to vocalize his or her thoughts faculty, students, and local business professionals in while working through a process is a valuable approach reading/viewing the ePortfolios from this college. We for understanding the usability of a procedure or a recruited faculty who were both familiar and technology. Jaspers et al. (2004) outlined using the think- unfamiliar with ePortfolios, with the final group aloud practice as a good way to gain insight into the representing a convenience sample of those willing to different ways that individuals approach problems. volunteer time to be interviewed. Students were Kilsdonk et al. (2016) further suggested that using the recruited from the Student Ambassador Program, think-aloud approach can help researchers extrapolate a which involved highly motivated students who mental model of how information is negotiated by the participate in work-study in Student Services. people interacting with the process or technology in Business professionals were recruited through question. Falan and Han (2013) conducted a study using personal connections and represented professionals the think-aloud approach in a similar way to the from health care, city administration, engineering, and application in this study. They asked participants to view large for profit businesses and corporations. Benander and Refaei Collaborative Meaning 75 Interview sites included participants’ homes and required, due to the highly personalized nature of the offices. Student participants were invited to the ePortfolios, graphic examples of their work are not investigators’ offices in order to maintain their privacy. possible, but descriptions allow this confidentiality to Professionals were asked where they preferred to be be maintained. One student used LiveBinders, while the interviewed; some chose to be interviewed in their other student used WordPress as the ePortfolio homes and others in their business offices. Instructors platform. Each student created an ePortfolio to were interviewed in their offices. Two ePortfolios were represent the work they had completed in their selected from an applied business degree program Bachelor’s program. Over the course of their program, designed for professionals with an associate’s degree so they collected assignments from different courses to that they can earn a bachelor’s as a means of career document their work. Professors in different courses advancement. The program focuses on business facilitated the addition of work from each course into management and business communication. Students the ePortfolio. The final collection of work was refined produce ePortfolios as a capstone experience. and presented in a capstone course for the program. Students were allowed to choose the platform, design, Data Collection and Analysis navigation, and some content, but they were specifically asked to include a section for their resumes, Interviews. To design a meaningful experience capstone projects, bridging course materials, and for readers, the author of an ePortfolio must meet applied workplace writing samples. Since these basic needs of readers. Different types of readers may ePortfolios were created over several courses, they were have specific expectations, and all readers may share built for multiple audiences. These ePortfolios were certain needs in common. To document these needs neither of very poor quality nor very high quality in and expectations we conducted a comparative study of terms of depth of reflection, clarity of navigation, 11 students, 13 faculty, and 10 business professionals quality of artifacts, or aesthetic appeal of design. reading the same two ePortfolios. Participants were “T’s” ePortfolio was created in WordPress. On T’s recorded engaging in a think-aloud practice with homepage, she told readers briefly what types of screen capture audio and video that documented how artifacts they might find. Her ePortfolio contained they navigated the ePortfolio and what they were several artifacts: resume, mid-collegiate course thinking about as they read the ePortfolio. Each assignments of samples (text, PDF, Word, YouTube, participant clicked through each ePortfolio in 15 photo), mid-collegiate course resume and goals, senior minutes for a total of a half hour interview: the data capstone case study project linked as a Word document, was comprised of 15 hours of interviews. During the the final senior capstone project, an image of her poster, ePortfolio reading sessions, one researcher sat behind and a link to her applied workplace writing course or beside the participant while he or she was reading ePortfolio that contained the artifacts from that course. the ePortfolio to help with technical problems, should T used the menu to connect her artifacts. She used they arise. In addition, the researcher would pose a hierarchical arrangement for the items on the menu to specific questions, such as “Why did you choose to indicate how the various parts fit together. The platform click on that link?” or “What is your reaction to that navigation structure required readers to go back to the navigation bar?” similar to the co-operative evaluation pop-up main menu each time they wanted to move to described in Wright and Monk (1991). another part of the ePortfolio. When she linked her The two PIs independently analyzed all interview ePortfolios from her mid-collegiate bridging course and transcripts. We identified themes in the transcripts her applied workplace writing, she did not provide a using NVivo software and calculated an 85-90% coding link back to her main ePortfolio. consistency. The video recordings were used as a type T’s personalization of her ePortfolio consisted of of observational field notes and the audio recordings selecting a stock template from WordPress (i.e., the were transcribed and coded using NVivo to identify Together Theme), which she did not customize. The themes in the interviews. Navigation was also Together Theme has a large banner of dancing figures documented, click-by-click, using the video to describe on a purple background that takes up the entire screen how each participant progressed through the and often hides the text below. This banner appears on ePortfolios. We collaboratively identified and defined all the pages of the ePortfolio. thirteen main coding themes. Using NVivo to isolate “J’s” ePortfolio was created in LiveBinders. His and sort the thematic coding of the transcripts, we opening page had a photograph of himself and brief collaboratively refined these coding themes to five introduction to his employment aspirations and personal principal findings through discussions of the analysis. interests. He provided a five-tab navigation on the left, ePortfolios. Two students agreed to allow us to use with each tab opening onto a submenu of documents. J their ePortfolios for this project. In analysis and included the same elements as T, but in somewhat presentation of this study, student confidentiality is greater quantity. The documents ranged from text to Benander and Refaei Collaborative Meaning 76 Table 1 Summary of ePortfolio Elements Favored (X) and Disfavored (O) by Students, Instructors, and Employers ePortfolio element Students Instructors Employers Graphics X X X Personal Photos O X O Multiple lines of menu tabs O O O Multi-colored menu tabs O O O Generally named menu tabs O O O Linear navigation X X X Downloading documents O X O Text of more than one screen O X O Blank pages or filler text O O O Short reflection introducing a piece X X X Long over-all reflection O X O Resume up front X O X presentation slides to photos. He included his resume, Table 1 summarizes the readers’ favorable and reflective pieces, and specific coursework assignments. unfavorable perceptions of the ePortfolio elements on J used embedded menus to connect his work. which they commented. Under each of the five vertically organized main tabs were further submenus, and in some cases, these sub- Finding 1: Audience and Purpose pages also included pages with horizontal menus linking to more documents. This navigational structure ePortfolios are designed to achieve a particular required readers to navigate within increasingly rhetorical purpose with an audience. In our study, embedded pages. These pages were the artifacts that participants had difficulty identifying the purpose for represented his work in different courses. the ePortfolios they reviewed. Because the purpose for J’s personalization of his ePortfolio consisted of the sample ePortfolios was not clear, participants were color choices for menu tabs and backgrounds, and he unsure of whether they were the intended audience. included two photographs, one on his opening page One student said, “I think that it’s important for people and one on his resume. The LiveBinders template to know this is what you’re looking at. This is why allowed the left vertical menu to be visible at all you’re looking at it. It makes the reader feel informed.” times, while the horizontal page specific menus were Without this context, participants had a difficult time visible only on a given page. imagining how ePortfolios would fit their needs. Participants identified four potential audiences: general Findings: Themes and Participant Perceptions readers, students, instructors, and employers. When participants identified students as an audience, they Five themes emerged from the analysis of the talked about how ePortfolios could be used to track participant interviews and the observations of their learning as a repository of their assignments. One participant navigation through the ePortfolios: audience instructor pointed out that putting an ePortfolio together and purpose, motivation to continue reading, navigating could “help prepare the student for interviews” because the ePortfolio, personalization, and reflection. These the process of putting the ePortfolio together would themes echo the findings of previous research described allow the student to reflect “on what he’s done and in the literature review. These themes are also where he wants to go.” In this case, the ePortfolio interconnected with each other. Who the readers are would not need to be shared with employers, since it plays a role in the type of motivation they need to would be used to help the student consider how to continue reading, as well as how they react to the represent what he has learned in his college experience. personalization and the reflection offered in the When participants thought of the audience as ePortfolio. The one theme that seems to be independent instructors, they describe how the ePortfolio could of the reader’s background is navigation. Most demonstrate and document student learning in a course participants followed the same navigational pattern. or program. In these learning ePortfolios, instructors Benander and Refaei Collaborative Meaning 77 wanted more focused reflections that discussed exactly first review of resumes. He said it would be a problem what the student had learned and used the artifacts as to view it during an interview because his organization evidence of that learning. Instructors had more patience was not set up for that. Another professional from city and interest in understanding what the various purposes government stated that the city office had a specific might be for an ePortfolio. They acknowledged the procedure for applicants to follow that involved a instrumental purpose of employment, but they also standard application and a place to upload a resume. noted that the ePortfolios demonstrated a range of There was no place for applicants to add an ePortfolio. learning through the collection of artifacts. Nevertheless, there were some professionals who Nevertheless, instructors also indicated that they thought they could use ePortfolios. One human wanted the ePortfolio authors to be clearer about their resources professional said an ePortfolio could be intended purpose for the ePortfolio. “helpful to try to get a feel for what a person has done, Most participants identified potential employers as how they think, and how they would fit in the the most likely audience for the sample ePortfolios. organization.” Several business professionals thought However, they noted that ePortfolios are not common that with relevant artifacts and explanations, an practice in most hiring processes. One business ePortfolio might help them narrow a list of final professor said, “It’s probably not something candidates after they had reviewed resumes. experienced professionals use all that much.” On the One instructor described how he would teach other hand, another younger professional who places students to do an ePortfolio for an employer: college students into co-op positions at his company stated that he would like to use ePortfolios to help him I would tell them to make it simple. Make it in that process because they provided information about logical. Just make it easier for the reader to follow. the skills and knowledge students have. To be able to logically say, “this ties to this” and Participants recognized that resumes are the most how it’s all supposed to fit together. I would tell important artifact for employers. Resumes, as a genre, them “you have to sell yourself. Why are you have been honed to meet employers’ needs for fast and doing these things? Why is it important to you? efficient review of multiple candidates. Resumes are set Why is it important to me?” up for quick scanning, and the standardized format allows readers to find the information they need This instructor’s directions reflect what the quickly. As one professional noted, business professionals in this study wanted. This advice would help students create ePortfolios that would I’m not vested in figuring [the applicant] out . . . It’s achieve their purpose for an employer as audience and just a fact that people who are viewing these have a develop coherence throughout the ePortfolio. lot of things going on, and you need to make it as easy as you can for them to buy into you. Finding 2: Motivation to Continue Reading Therefore, he expected the ePortfolio to be Regardless of purpose, the reader must feel streamlined to demonstrate quickly and efficiently the motivated to continue reading the ePortfolio past applicant’s skills and knowledge, suggesting he preferred the opening page. The primary motivation of all to read the whole ePortfolio like an extended resume three groups was to look at the content of the Participants identified problems with ePortfolios ePortfolio. Easy access and having their interest for potential employers. They suggested that the piqued seemed to be key to increasing or decreasing ePortfolio needs to be tailored for specific jobs, just as this motivation. All three groups of readers resumes are tailored. These readers wanted generally agreed that navigation, design, and contextualization of artifacts and intuitive navigation. purpose were important elements that affected their Participants wanted authors to provide appropriate continued motivation to read further. content. One student suggested that “employers want to Student readers found the navigation structure most know what you did in school. They don’t want your important in motivating them to read further. When homework. You have to kind of summarize.” This navigation menus were cluttered or unclearly labeled, recommendation was also given by professionals. They they were very clear that this frustrated them and suggested providing executive summaries for the caused them to not want to continue through the artifacts as a way to provide quick, easy to read context. ePortfolio. Students’ key criteria for continuing reading Professionals struggled with understanding how was that the ePortfolio author create a navigation ePortfolios would be involved in the hiring processes system that made it easy to find what they wanted, and already in place. One information technology when they clicked on a link or tab, what they expected professional asked when the applicant would present to come up would appear. One student summarized the the ePortfolio. He didn’t think he would review it in the general feeling when she said, “You shouldn’t have to Benander and Refaei Collaborative Meaning 78 guess your way through someone’s ePortfolio because longer documents, and would generally read or scan the minute you can’t navigate yourself, you’re going to them, often looking for specific parts of the lose interest.” The second most important element document to read carefully, such as conclusions, students cited was the length of documents. Short, one- recommendations, or results. paragraph explanations were read, but longer texts were only scanned, if they were read at all. Finally, blank Finding 3: Navigation Through ePortfolios pages were cited as a clear demotivation; students often commented that hitting a bank page was like hitting a All three groups showed strong similarities in road-block in the ePortfolio, and they all commented navigating through the ePortfolios. Patterns of that they would quit at that point. navigation and perceptions of author meaning in Professionals shared the students’ perceptions of navigational structure were observed in both the click motivation to continue reading. They cited clear through screen-capture video and the participants’ navigation tabs as an element that made them want to observations as they read the ePortfolios. In general, all continue through the ePortfolio because it helped them readers followed the vertical and horizontal menu find what they wanted quickly. They also cited clear, orders. Long text was not read by anybody but was concise statements of purpose for what each page often scanned to the bottom. Short text of one screen should mean. In the same vein, they reported that the was more likely to be read. Students and employers principal reason they would not read a page or artifact spent more time on the resume, and instructors were was length. None of the professionals who reviewed the more likely to read the reflections. Blank pages ePortfolios read the documents of more than one page. confused and irritated all readers. A reader would scroll They would scan the documents if they felt the up and down on a blank page to make sure nothing was document’s purpose was clear, but only read there and waited to see if something might load. Often selectively. Professionals were most motivated to all readers will scroll up and down on a page to preview continue to read when the author easily facilitated their what was there and then scan or move on. Scrolling up purposes in reading. and down was a form of pre-reading that helped them Instructors agreed that navigation was an decide where to focus their attention and for how long important driver in feeling motivated to continue they would attend. reading because clear navigation made it easy for In reading the ePortfolios, all three groups them to read what they wanted. They also commented interpreted the reading of the ePortfolio as a that they were motivated to read further when their collaborative act of co-constructing meaning with the expectations were met when what they clicked on author. While moving through the ePortfolio, the gave them what they expected. In addition, instructors readers would often address the author directly such as, reported that graphics and color caught their interest “Don’t let me down!” or “What are you doing here?” or and contributed to their desire to read further. One “Oh, you went sideways on me!” The navigation menu, instructor summarized this view in her comment:“I the design, the menu labels, and the relationship of like the graphics. It’s eye catching and it’s got me artifacts with each other in the ePortfolio were all interested so I’m excited to see what the work is just interpreted to have specific meaning by the readers, because the graphics have kind of drawn me in here.” such that the ePortfolio seemed to become an avatar of Even if a page’s content did not initially engage the the author. The design was interpreted as the affect of reader, the graphics might motivate them to continue. the author and the organization as the intent of the All participants agreed that unclear navigation author. Readers actively looked for guidance from the was a strong demotivator because it did not allow the author through the menu and file names. The menu was readers to find easily the artifacts they wished to seen as an overview of the site, and the opening page find. This included unclear tab labels as well as was expected to set up the reading experience for the inconvenient menu structures, such as embedded reader. Readers felt that dealing with the ePortfolio was menus or menus that required clicking on an icon to work, and they saw the author’s job as creating an easy bring up the main menu. This difficulty was experience for the reader. Being confused by navigation characterized by all groups as “wasting my time.” or by a document’s significance was felt as a “waste of Both students and professionals cited length as the time.” Readers also objected to being forced to go next strongest demotivation to read. They skimmed through several clicks to find something since clicking long text or just exited the document immediately multiple times is perceived as a lot of work that the after scrolling past one page. Participants in the author should not make a reader endure. professional group indicated that they wanted three Confusion about where to go or what a document sentence introductions to explain why they should signified was felt as a betrayal by the author. For bother reading a document longer than one page. example, a menu tab called “resume reflection” that did Instructors, in contrast, had more patience with not deliver a resume was a source of irritation, and a Benander and Refaei Collaborative Meaning 79 blank page was interpreted as an irresponsible act by position themselves as readers appears to influence the author. The faculty readers were more likely to how they react to and interpret the personal photos assume that they had done something wrong or the and the stock banner image. page may have been slow to load, but student and Design. Although design may not seem like a professional readers often indicated that a blank page primary concern, it is the gateway to content. If readers or a confusing set of menu tabs would make them are put off by the design, be it color or navigation, then stop reading. In fact, a particularly confusing menu they will not even look at the content. Similarly, elicited dismay, confusion, and shock in all readers. grammar and punctuation are not the content of the text, In this case, the author was perceived as no longer but they are perceived by readers as barriers to providing sufficient guidance to the reader, and the understanding content, and indicators of the author’s cooperative relationship was no longer reciprocated ability to communicate. Grammatical errors seemed to to by the frustrated readers, almost all of whom quit create perceptions of a personal lack of ability if the reading at that point. author is perceived to be a native speaker of English. The menu was interpreted by all readers as the Instructors were willing to work through the design principal guidance provided by the author to show the since they perceived the errors as part of the learning reader around the ePortfolio. All readers expressed a process. They viewed the ePortfolios as unfinished preference for vertical menus or horizontal menus of process pieces. In contrast, students and business one layer. The majority of readers followed the menu professionals viewed the ePortfolios as final products. order as a deliberate request from the author to read the Students were highly critical of poor design and ePortfolio in this way. Proximity of items in the menu language problems since these were issues that they was interpreted as relationships between documents, perceived to be key to their own success. Business and the order of presentation was also interpreted as professionals were least tolerant of poor design and creating a framework that gave meaning to individual language choices. In their perception, poor design and documents. Readers also transferred their general language choices wasted their time, which irritated knowledge of how to navigate from other websites. them, and were indicators of the author’s professional When the menus of the ePortfolio became too abilities or inabilities. confusing, readers would often revert to navigating with Banner with personal photos. When participants the browser commands. assumed the role of an employer reviewing the Readers also viewed the choices of platform as ePortfolio, no participant approved of J’s decision to deliberate constructions of meaning by the author. include a photo of himself on his resume. Many Readers recognized that the author’s choices were participants interpreted this move as an attempt to constrained by the templates of the platforms, but they provide a headshot. One student participant, who also expected the authors to be able to make choices actually uses headshots in her applications, describes within those platforms. Good choices were how she uses them: “I sing opera. If they require characterized as clean, clear, and slick, while bad headshots, I have them professionally done on photo choices were characterized as confusing, cluttered, and paper to give them, not like a little clip on the top of the old fashioned. resume.” When participants explained why they believed the photo was inappropriate, they said it could Finding 4: Personalization of the ePortfolio and Its lead to bias for or against the author. One student said, Effects on Readers “I don’t like the photo on the resume. Like, they’re judging you based on how you look.” Participants explicitly noted the personalization The type of photos J used elicited strong negative of each ePortfolio. One instructor said, “It’s reactions. Professionals, faculty, and students all interesting how personality comes through just from questioned the use of an informal photo instead of a the very first page.” This personalization came in professional headshot. In describing the ePortfolio one the form of several design choices the authors instructor said, “His biggest error was that picture.” The made. One author chose to use personal photos, use of a photo that did not match readers’ expectations while the other chose to use stock images from the led to negative interpretations of J. WordPress template. J used lots of different colors The negative responses ranged from mild while T stuck with the template colors. J chose to amusement to strong disapproval. Among the mild use a left fixed menu, while T used a hidden menu reactions, participants said that it seems “this person is icon. These design choices influenced the way really into themselves.” They recognized that J may not participants read/viewed the ePortfolios. How have realized how the large size of the first image and participants conceived of their role as readers and placement of the photo on the resume might be their purpose for reading also affected how they considered narcissistic. They thought it was a novice responded to these choices. How participants mistake. The background of a gothic style fence caused Benander and Refaei Collaborative Meaning 80 one business professional to “start thinking about conception of the purpose and audience for this religion,” which would be inappropriate in the business ePortfolio. The professional could not conceive of environment. Another professional stated his objections himself as a general audience. He expected the image to more bluntly: “I would not even read it. Just his look target his needs as a reader, and when those and the way he’s dressed. It’s too formal for scientific expectations were not met, he stopped reading. The fields.” These professionals’ expectations as readers student recognized this disconnect between the image were violated. This violation of the reader expectations and the ePortfolio’s employment purpose as well. The can undermine an ePortfolio’s appeal to the reader. student did not see how this image of dancers Some instructors liked the idea of a photo of the connected to T’s stated career goal of event planning. T ePortfolio creator because it helped them “put a face did not explain why she has made this design choice, so with a name.” It also gave them a sense they were readers were left to work out the relationship of the “dealing with a real person.” Instructors were less put image to the purpose of the ePortfolio independently. off by the personal photo. One instructor said, “This is Readers perceived this extra rhetorical work as the nice because now I have an idea of who J is.” Some responsibility of the author, and they expressed instructors saw the photo as inviting. annoyance at having to guess the connections. Banner with stock image. When participants positioned themselves as a generic reader exploring Finding 5: Reflection an ePortfolio, participants made positive comments about the image and the colors. They pointed out that Instructor readers were strongly focused on the the dancing figures were joyous, whimsical, and reflective pieces as demonstrations of personal growth happy. Three students associated the banner with and development. They interpreted the reflective being artistic. Instructors said it showed T was pieces as showing maturity and diligence on the part collaborative and open-minded. They liked the colors of the author. In some cases, instructors commented and thought the banner “is a good balance of fun and that the reflections should guide the reader to drawing your eye to it all.” understanding the overall purpose of the ePortfolio Instructors and professionals also conceived of and give the reader a general frame of reference. themselves as needing to be able to review the Nonetheless, instructors still asserted that the ePortfolio contents quickly and efficiently. In this reflection should be a rigorous piece of writing and reader position, the size of the banner became an issue. not so informal as to be more like a diary entry. The banner appeared on most of the screen, obscuring Students and professionals were less interested in the the text below. Four instructors and three professionals reflective pieces, often criticizing them for being too were frustrated by the extra scrolling they had to do informal, too long, or insufficiently relevant to the because of the banner size. practical purpose of the ePortfolio. Reflective pieces When participants positioned themselves as were clearly more interesting, familiar, and potential employers reviewing the ePortfolio for informative for instructors than for either students or potential employment, they interpreted the stock image professionals. The reflections in these two ePortfolios negatively. Interestingly, instructors did not take on this were not able to meet the expectations of any of the role when they read the ePortfolios, so they did not readers. Each reader came to the reflections with discuss the mismatch between the purpose and the stock greatly varying expectations about the function the image. Both students and professionals did comment on reflections served in the ePortfolio. this mismatch and reacted strongly to it. One professional said, “This dancing stuff. It looks like it Discussion might be good for some art or some other musical or some entertainment something, but not for what I’m These findings lead us back to Yancey et al.’s looking for.” A student commented that (2013) question, “What rhetorical moves—thinking here of addressing specific audiences--count as I don’t have a sense of the person who created it. I powerfully addressing audience, and what count as feel like the picture stands out because I don’t negatively limiting audience, ignoring the greater know why they chose that and they have their digital context in which the work is placed?” (p. 22). reasons. I think they were studying business The participants in our study clearly identified specific administration and they talked about working in elements of the ePortfolios that affected them hotel work, so that dancing in a circle kind of powerfully, such as navigation and design, and those confuses me. that negatively limited them, such as unclear purpose of an artifact or lengthy text. Gallagher and Poklop (2014) The negative reactions of these two participants addressed this idea of rhetorical moves, identifying arises out of mismatch between the ePortfolio creator’s intentional design, adequate contextualization, and