

































English Language Teaching Educational Journal   ISSN 2621-6485 

Vol. 8, No. 3, December 2025, pp. 177-191  

        https://doi.org/10.12928/eltej.v8i3.14853        http://journal2.uad.ac.id/index.php/eltej/index         eltej@pbi.uad.ac.id  

Evaluating the implementation of E-portfolio-based learning in 

ELT Through the CIPP model: A qualitative descriptive study 

in Indonesia 

Raden Muhammad Ali a, 1, *, Samsul Hadi b, 2, Widyastuti Purbani b, 3, Sinta Nuriyah Muso 

Utomo a, 4, Muhammad Kunta Biddinika a, 5, Dwi Hastuti a, 6 

a Universitas Ahmad Dahlan, Kampus 4, Jl. Ring Road Selatan, Tamanan, Banguntapan, Yogyakarta, 55191, Indonesia 
b Universitas Negeri Yogyakarta, Jl. Colombo No.1, Karang Malang, Caturtunggal, Yogyakarta, 55281, Indonesia  
1 raden.ali@pbi.uad.ac.id*; 2 samsul_hd@uny.ac.id; 3 purbani@uny.ac.id; 4 sinta1900004093@webmail.uad.ac.id; 5 mkuntab@gmail.com; 
6 dwi.hastuti@pgpaud.uad.ac.id       

 

*corresponding author   

A R T I C L E  I N F O 

 
 

A B ST R ACT   

 

 

Article history 

Received 15 June 2025 

Revised 17 July 2025 

Accepted 4 August 2025 

 E-portfolios have increasingly been integrated into higher education to 
promote reflection, documentation, and learner autonomy; however, 
their effectiveness in English Language Teaching (ELT) in Indonesia 
remains insufficiently examined. This study evaluates the use of e-
portfolio-based learning in an Evaluation in ELT course by employing 
the Context, Input, Process, and Product (CIPP) evaluation model. 
Four research questions guided the investigation, focusing on the 
relevance of the programme context, the adequacy of inputs, the 
implementation processes, and the resulting learning outcomes. Using 
a descriptive qualitative design, data were collected through classroom 
observations, semi-structured interviews, and documentation of 
students’ e-portfolios. The participants consisted of one lecturer and 
thirty-seven seventh-semester students (ten males and twenty-seven 
females) enrolled in the course during the 2022/2023 academic year; 
additionally, three students were purposively selected for in-depth 
interviews. The findings indicate that (1) the context supported the 
adoption of e-portfolios as it aligned with course needs and learning 
objectives; (2) the input—including digital facilities, infrastructure, 
and access to online tools—was adequate for implementation; (3) the 
process showed active student engagement, although challenges such 
as connectivity issues, device limitations, and time constraints were 
present; and (4) the product demonstrated positive learning outcomes, 
including improved documentation practices, better understanding of 
course material, and increased digital literacy. The study underscores 
the potential of e-portfolios to enhance ELT learning and suggests the 
need for more structured feedback mechanisms and technical support 
to optimise future implementation.  

 

© The Authors 2025. Published by Universitas Ahmad Dahlan. 

This is an open access article under the CC–BY-SA license. 

    

 

 
Keywords 

CIPP 

E-portfolio 

Evaluation 

English Language Teaching 

Qualitative research 

 

 

 

 

How to Cite: Ali, R. M., Hadi, S., Purbani, W., Utomo, S. N. M., Biddinika, M. K., & Hastuti, D. (2025). 
Evaluating the implementation of E-portfolio-based learning in ELT Through the CIPP model: A qualitative 
descriptive study in Indonesia. English Language Teaching Educational Journal, 8(3), 177-191. 
https://doi.org/10.12928/eltej.v8i3.14853    

1. Introduction  

The integration of digital learning tools has become increasingly essential in higher education 
(Alenezi et al., 2023), particularly within English Language Teaching (ELT) (Vaishnav, 2024), where 

https://doi.org/10.12928/eltej.v8i3.14228
http://journal2.uad.ac.id/index.php/eltej/index
mailto:eltej@pbi.uad.ac.id
mailto:raden.ali@pbi.uad.ac.id
mailto:samsul_hd@uny.ac.id
mailto:purbani@uny.ac.id
mailto:sinta1900004093@webmail.uad.ac.id
mailto:mkuntab@gmail.com
mailto:dwi.hastuti@pgpaud.uad.ac.id
http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/
https://doi.org/10.12928/eltej.v8i3.14853
http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/
http://crossmark.crossref.org/dialog/?doi=10.12928/eltej.v8i3.14853&domain=pdf
https://orcid.org/0000-0001-7058-5575
https://orcid.org/0000-0002-7362-846X
https://orcid.org/0000-0002-7362-846X
https://orcid.org/0000-0001-9103-0253


178 English Language Teaching Educational Journal   ISSN 2621-6485 

 Vol. 8, No. 3, December 2025, pp. 177-191 

 Ali et al (Evaluating the implementation of E-portfolio-based learning in ELT Through …..) 

technological advancements continue to influence instructional practices and assessment strategies. 
Among the various digital platforms currently used, electronic portfolios (e-portfolios) have gained 
prominence for their capacity to enhance learner autonomy (Kiffer et al., 2021), promote reflective 
engagement, and provide systematic documentation of learning progress (Bassam & Baniyounes, 
2024). In digital learning environments, e-portfolios offer opportunities for students to curate 
multimodal evidence of their competencies  (Barrot, 2025; Lam, 2022), allowing learning to be 
demonstrated not merely through test scores but through authentic, process-oriented artefacts (Maya 
& Wolf, 2024). Previous research highlights that e-portfolios support self-regulated learning (Beckers 
et al., 2016; Gulden et al., 2020; Romero et al., 2019), multimodal production, and authentic 
assessment (Tur et al., 2019; White, 2019) by enabling students to review materials (Rezadoust et al., 
2025) , track their development, and engage in reflective thinking (Ciesielkiewicz, 2019; Roco & 
Barberà, 2022) ; (Sobko & Brown, 2019). Within ELT specifically, e-portfolios have shown potential 
to improve engagement and strengthen productive language skills such as speaking and writing 
through iterative practice and reflection (Kusuma et al., 2021; Muin et al., 2021). 

Despite these advantages, the adoption of e-portfolios in Indonesian higher education remains 
relatively constrained (Ali et al., 2025). Existing studies indicate that lecturers and students face 
persistent challenges related to digital readiness, technical literacy, and familiarity with portfolio-
based pedagogies (Kusuma & Waluyo, 2023; Ni & Lam, 2025). Research on e-portfolios in Indonesia 
generally focuses on limited aspects, such as learner perceptions (Namaziandost et al., 2020; Wardani 
et al., 2022), isolated skill development, or technological barriers, without examining how e-portfolios 
operate as part of a broader instructional system. Moreover, studies rarely address how e-portfolio 
implementation relates to institutional conditions, course objectives, or teaching practices (Harun et 
al., 2021). This gap is reflected in the classroom data used in this study, where the lecturer reported 
issues such as disorganised documentation, low engagement during online sessions, and the need to 
cultivate students’ responsibility for storing and revisiting learning materials. 

As universities across Indonesia continue integrating digital tools to support blended and online 
instruction, there is a pressing need to understand not only whether e-portfolios are useful but how 
they function within the learning environment (Ali et al., 2024). Such understanding requires a 
systematic evaluation that takes into account the alignment between programme intentions, available 
resources, teaching processes, and learning outcomes. Evaluation frameworks provide structured 
approaches for such analyses. Among them, the Context, Input, Process, and Product (CIPP) model 
offers a comprehensive and formative lens for evaluating educational programmes (Linda, 2025). It 
enables a holistic assessment of programme needs (context), resource readiness (input), 
implementation quality (process), and learning results (product). While CIPP has been widely used to 
evaluate curricula, teacher education programmes, and institutional innovations, its application to e-
portfolio-based learning in Indonesian ELT remains limited, leaving a significant theoretical and 
empirical gap. 

Although e-portfolio research in ELT has grown internationally, most studies focus on micro-level 
analyses, such as motivation, learner experience, or specific language-skill outcomes. Very few 
studies in Indonesia have examined e-portfolios at the programme level (Afrilyasanti et al., 2024), let 
alone using a comprehensive evaluation framework that simultaneously analyses context, resources, 
instructional dynamics, and learning outcomes. This study therefore offers novelty by shifting the 
focus toward a system-level evaluation that captures the interconnected components shaping e-
portfolio implementation. Such an approach is crucial in the Indonesian ELT context, where digital 
learning adoption varies widely across institutions and where empirical guidance for designing and 
sustaining digital learning practices is still developing. 

This study also introduces novelty through the deliberate application of the CIPP evaluation model 
to assess e-portfolio-based learning. While CIPP is well established in international programme 
evaluation scholarship, its utilisation for examining digital learning innovations—particularly e-
portfolios in ELT—remains underrepresented in Indonesian research. Through the use of CIPP, this 
study generates a holistic account of the strengths, challenges, and pedagogical value of e-portfolio 
implementation, offering evidence-based recommendations that can inform future curricular design 
and institutional decision-making. This makes the study timely and relevant, especially as Indonesian 
universities seek sustainable digital learning strategies following the rapid transitions of the pandemic 
period. 



ISSN 2621-6485 English Language Teaching Educational Journal 179 

         Vol. 8, No. 3, December 2025, pp. 177-191 

 Ali et al (Evaluating the implementation of E-portfolio-based learning in ELT Through …..) 

Given the growing adoption of digital learning tools and the limited evidence regarding their 
pedagogical effectiveness in Indonesian ELT programmes, conducting a systematic evaluation 
becomes essential. Such evaluation is needed not only to assess current practices but also to inform 
improvements, support lecturer decision-making, and guide institutional policies for digital learning 
innovation. In this study, the lecturer’s reflections on documentation practices, engagement issues, 
and the need for structured learning review further underscore the relevance of evaluating the e-
portfolio programme comprehensively. 

Therefore, this study aims to evaluate the use of e-portfolio-based learning in an ELT course at an 
Indonesian university using the CIPP evaluation model. Specifically, it addresses the following 
research questions: 

1. How does the context of the e-portfolio-based learning programme support its implementation 
in the Evaluation in ELT course? 

2. How do the inputs—including resources, facilities, and instructional supports—contribute to 
the use of e-portfolios in the course? 

3. How does the learning process unfold during the implementation of e-portfolio-based 
learning? 

4. What learning outcomes (products) result from the use of e-portfolios in the course? 

By addressing these questions, this study contributes to the expanding body of literature on digital 
learning in ELT by providing programme-level evidence on the effectiveness of e-portfolios. The 
findings offer practical insights for lecturers, curriculum designers, and policymakers seeking to 
optimise digital learning integration in Indonesian higher education. Ultimately, this research seeks to 
inform sustainable approaches to technology-enhanced learning that support engagement, autonomy, 
and long-term learning development in ELT courses. 

2. Method 

As part of the effort to comprehensively evaluate the implementation of e-portfolio-based learning 
within the ELT context, this study required a methodological approach capable of capturing the full 
dynamics of the programme. The methodology needed to trace the relationships between instructional 
goals, resource readiness, classroom processes, and the learning outcomes achieved by students. In 
addition, the research method had to accommodate the exploration of the lecturer’s and students’ 
subjective experiences, enabling a richer and more accurate portrayal of how the programme operated 
in practice. With these considerations in mind, a qualitative approach was selected to provide both 
flexibility and analytical depth. 

2.1. Research Design 

This study employed a descriptive qualitative design to evaluate the implementation of e-portfolio-
based learning in an English Language Teaching (ELT) course. The evaluation was guided by the 
Context, Input, Process, and Product (CIPP) model, which provides a comprehensive framework for 
examining the alignment between programme objectives, available resources, instructional processes, 
and learning outcomes. Using this approach allowed the researchers to explore how e-portfolio 
practices functioned within the natural classroom setting and to understand the experiences of both 
lecturer and students. 

2.2. Setting and Participants 

The research was conducted in the Evaluation in ELT course during the 2022/2023 academic year 
at the English Education Study Programme of Universitas Ahmad Dahlan, Indonesia. The participants 
consisted of one lecturer and thirty-seven seventh-semester students, comprising ten males and 
twenty-seven females. To obtain more detailed insights into student experiences, three students were 
purposively selected for follow-up interviews based on their consistency in completing e-portfolio 
tasks and their active classroom participation. The class used a blended-learning format, which 
provided opportunities to observe both face-to-face and online components of the course. 



180 English Language Teaching Educational Journal   ISSN 2621-6485 

 Vol. 8, No. 3, December 2025, pp. 177-191 

 Ali et al (Evaluating the implementation of E-portfolio-based learning in ELT Through …..) 

2.3. Instruments 

Data were collected using three primary instruments: an observation guide, a semi-structured 
interview protocol, and a documentation checklist. The observation guide helped record the flow of 
classroom activities, the lecturer’s instructions, and students’ engagement with e-portfolio tasks. The 
interview protocol was developed to explore participants’ experiences, challenges, and perceptions 
related to e-portfolio use. It was reviewed informally by ELT and e-learning experts to ensure content 
clarity. The documentation checklist was used to examine students’ e-portfolio artefacts, including 
the organisation of Google Sites pages, completeness of uploaded materials, and the presence of 
reflective elements. 

2.4. Data Collection Procedures 

Data collection took place over the duration of the course. Classroom observations were conducted 
during scheduled meetings to examine how the lecturer introduced e-portfolios, demonstrated the use 
of Google Sites, and facilitated discussions around students’ work. Semi-structured interviews were 
carried out with the lecturer and the three selected students. All interviews were audio-recorded with 
consent and subsequently transcribed for analysis. In addition, documentation of students’ e-portfolios 
was gathered through screenshots, artefact listings, and access to students’ Google Sites pages, 
allowing the researchers to analyse learning products and patterns of participation. 

2.5. Data Analysis 

Data analysis followed Miles, Huberman, and Saldaña’s (2014) interactive model, comprising data 
condensation, data display, and conclusion drawing. During data condensation, the researchers 
selected and organised relevant excerpts from interview transcripts, observation notes, and 
documentation records. These condensed data were then displayed in thematic matrices and narrative 
summaries aligned with the four CIPP components. Analysis continued with iterative coding, 
beginning with inductive identification of emerging themes and followed by deductive categorisation 
based on CIPP dimensions. The final stage involved drawing conclusions by comparing patterns 
across data sources and verifying interpretations through collaborative discussion among the 
researchers. 

2.6. Trustworthiness 

Several strategies were implemented to ensure the trustworthiness of the findings. Method 
triangulation was achieved by combining observations, interviews, and documentation. Data source 
triangulation was applied by obtaining perspectives from both lecturer and students. Peer debriefing 
with colleagues in ELT helped refine interpretations, while member checking was conducted by 
sharing interview summaries with participants to confirm the accuracy of their statements. These 
procedures strengthened the credibility and dependability of the study. 

2.7. Evaluation Framework: CIPP Model 

The CIPP model served as the analytical framework for evaluating the programme. The Context 
component examined the background and objectives of e-portfolio adoption. The Input component 
assessed the availability of resources, infrastructure, and instructional planning. The Process 
component focused on how e-portfolio-based learning was implemented in practice, including lecturer 
strategies, student participation, and encountered challenges. The Product component evaluated the 
outcomes of the learning programme, including students’ understandings, skills, and reflections. By 
structuring the analysis around these four dimensions, the study offered a holistic evaluation of e-
portfolio-based learning in the ELT classroom. 

3. Finding and Discussion 

This section presents the integrated findings and discussions derived from the evaluation of an e-
portfolio-based learning programme using the CIPP model. In qualitative educational research, it is 
both logical and methodologically appropriate to combine findings and discussions into a single, 
interpretive narrative in order to preserve the coherence between empirical data, thematic 
interpretation, and theoretical linkage. Accordingly, this section is organised into four subsections—
Context, Input, Process, and Product—each representing one research question and containing eight 
analytical paragraphs. These paragraphs draw from interviews, classroom observations, and 



ISSN 2621-6485 English Language Teaching Educational Journal 181 

         Vol. 8, No. 3, December 2025, pp. 177-191 

 Ali et al (Evaluating the implementation of E-portfolio-based learning in ELT Through …..) 

documentation of student e-portfolios, and are supported by relevant scholarship to produce a 
comprehensive and evidence-driven evaluation of the learning programme. 

3.1. Context Evaluation 

The context evaluation revealed that the adoption of e-portfolio-based learning arose from a 
confluence of pedagogical, technological, and motivational challenges experienced during the 
COVID-19 pandemic. The lecturer described the unprecedented shift to online education as a period 
marked by dramatic declines in student engagement: “Students were not active in Zoom class, mostly 
off cam, and learning became boring and monotonous.” This experience parallels findings in the 
global literature noting widespread passivity, emotional detachment, and cognitive overload among 
online learners (Amin & Paiman, 2022). The need to redesign instructional strategies was therefore 
urgent, prompting the lecturer to consider alternative approaches that could maintain interaction and 
accountability. 

Students’ testimonies further reinforced the contextual need for transforming the learning 
framework. One student recounted a common but critical issue: “My notes were lost somewhere when 
I was going to Final Exam.” This statement reveals the vulnerability of paper-based documentation, 
especially during periods of remote or hybrid learning. The literature consistently reports that students 
often struggle to maintain organised, accessible, and long-term records of learning materials without 
digital support  (Scully et al., 2018). The adoption of e-portfolios thus addressed a concrete 
organisational problem that had implications for academic performance and learner confidence. 

Another contextual dimension was the need to facilitate reflective learning and deep processing of 
instructional materials. A student explained: “This e-portfolio makes me review the material… and 
that is what makes us remember what the lecturer explained.” This form of cyclical review is 
foundational to self-regulated learning theory (Zimmerman, 1990), which emphasises learner 
responsibility in reviewing, evaluating, and reconstructing knowledge. In ELT contexts, reflective 
review supports metalinguistic awareness, vocabulary retention, and comprehension skills (Kusuma 
et al., 2021), suggesting that the e-portfolio aligned strongly with both pedagogical and domain-
specific needs. 

The lecturer also emphasised the programme’s alignment with broader digital transformation 
trends in higher education. He noted that e-portfolios allowed students to access materials “anywhere 
and anytime,” reflecting core principles of flexible and ubiquitous learning (Haggerty & Thompson, 
2017). This demonstrates that the contextual rationale for adopting e-portfolios extended beyond 
pandemic responses, tapping into global educational demands for digital literacy, multimodal 
engagement, and self-directed learning competencies. 

A further contextual factor involved empowering students to develop sustained habits of academic 
responsibility. The lecturer expressed an intention to encourage students to document learning 
systematically, a skill relevant for teachers-in-training in ELT programmes. Research affirms that e-
portfolios can cultivate long-term learning strategies—and not merely serve short-term assessment 
purposes—when integrated consistently into coursework (Rhodes, 2010). The programme thus sought 
to cultivate habits aligned with professional expectations in educational fields. 

Moreover, the context suggested that the e-portfolio programme filled a pedagogical gap by 
enabling more transparent and continuous monitoring of student progress. The lecturer explained that 
digital archiving helped him trace students’ understanding throughout the semester, something 
difficult to achieve through traditional assignments. This benefits instructors by making student 
learning more visible and trackable, aligning with the principle of assessment for learning (Black & 
Wiliam, 1998). 

Additionally, e-portfolios addressed the need for authentic assessment during hybrid learning. 
Authentic assessment theory emphasises the importance of real-world tasks, process documentation, 
and reflective demonstration of learning. The programme met these needs by requiring students to 
reconstruct knowledge, organise content, and articulate understanding in their own words. 

Overall, the context evaluation indicates that the adoption of e-portfolios was highly justified, 
grounded in real challenges, and responsive to learners’ needs. It aligns with Stufflebeam’s 
(Stufflebeam, 2003) requirement that context evaluation must identify needs, goals, and opportunities 
before programme implementation. Collectively, student testimonies, lecturer reflections, and 



182 English Language Teaching Educational Journal   ISSN 2621-6485 

 Vol. 8, No. 3, December 2025, pp. 177-191 

 Ali et al (Evaluating the implementation of E-portfolio-based learning in ELT Through …..) 

theoretical alignment show that the contextual foundation for the e-portfolio programme was strong, 
timely, and pedagogically sound. 

3.2. Input Evaluation 

The input evaluation examined how resources, technological tools, institutional support, and 
instructional preparation contributed to the implementation of the e-portfolio programme. The lecturer 
deliberately selected Google Sites due to its cost-free nature, accessibility, and ease of use. He 
explained: “I choose to use Google Sites because it’s easy and free.” Accessibility is a critical input 
element in digital environments where socioeconomic disparities affect learner participation. Prior 
studies affirm that user-friendly and free platforms facilitate smoother adoption in resource-variable 
contexts (Salas-Pilco et al., 2022). 

Students’ access to devices and internet connectivity varied, revealing an important input 
challenge. Although most students had laptops and institutional Google accounts, several reported 
connectivity problems. One student stated: “Because the class is hybrid… sometimes the signal was 
bad and making it took a lot of energy and time.” Research shows that inconsistent connectivity can 
significantly limit learners’ participation in digitally mediated tasks (Michikyan et al., 2025) . Despite 
these obstacles, students adapted by working offline and uploading assignments when network 
conditions improved, demonstrating resilience and digital problem-solving behaviours. 

Instructional preparation was a significant input strength. The lecturer provided a thoroughly 
prepared syllabi (RPS), learning modules, examples of portfolio structures, and clear instructions for 
each weekly task. This scaffolding allowed students to understand expectations, pacing, and task 
requirements. Literature emphasises that clear instructional design is crucial for portfolio success 
(Tosun, 2011), especially for learners unfamiliar with multimodal documentation  (Scully et al., 2018) 

Another important input was students’ willingness to engage in independent learning strategies. 
One student described: “My first strategy is to find out what an e-portfolio is… I looked at references 
on the internet.” This aligns with research demonstrating that digital portfolio tasks naturally 
encourage self-directed learning and independent exploration (Chittum, 2018). These strategies 
represent an essential input in the CIPP framework, which emphasises learner readiness as a 
prerequisite for effective programme outcomes. 

Institutional support further strengthened the programme’s inputs. The availability of classroom 
projectors, speakers, air conditioning, and electrical infrastructure created a conducive environment 
for hybrid learning. University-provided Google accounts streamlined student access to digital tools, 
while integrated platforms such as Google Docs and YouTube enriched the portfolio creation process. 
Institutional technological readiness is a known predictor of successful digital learning 
implementations (Okuonghae et al., 2021). 

The lecturer’s preparation also included designing activities that emphasised multimodal 
representation, reflection, and documentation—principles central to portfolio assessment. This aligns 
with constructivist approaches, which view learning as the active construction of knowledge rather 
than passive consumption. The e-portfolio created opportunities for student content creation, which is 
a key marker of constructivist and experiential learning approaches (Sitthimongkolchai et al., 2022). 

Despite robust inputs, challenges remained—most notably students’ inconsistent familiarity with 
digital tools. Some students required additional support and modelling from the lecturer. Digital 
readiness varies widely among Indonesian undergraduates (Kusuma & Waluyo, 2023). However, the 
programme’s inputs—platform choice, institutional infrastructure, instructional scaffolds, and learner 
strategies—collectively provided a strong foundation that aligned with the input dimension of the 
CIPP model. 

3.3. Process Evaluation 

The process evaluation examined how the e-portfolio programme unfolded in practice, including 
instructional procedures, student engagement, learning behaviours, and challenges (Keshmiri & 
Mehrparvar, 2023). The lecturer explained that the course used a blended approach: “This e-portfolio 
is mostly done as homework… we discuss difficulties during several meetings.” This aligns with 
blended learning models, which combine synchronous instruction with asynchronous reflective tasks, 
improving motivation and self-regulation  (Ho & Tai, 2020). The design of the programme encouraged 



ISSN 2621-6485 English Language Teaching Educational Journal 183 

         Vol. 8, No. 3, December 2025, pp. 177-191 

 Ali et al (Evaluating the implementation of E-portfolio-based learning in ELT Through …..) 

learners to balance structured instruction with independent online activities, allowing them to 
gradually develop autonomy in managing digital tasks and course responsibilities. 

Students’ weekly routines involved documenting learning materials, uploading summaries, 
embedding external resources, and writing reflective notes. One student described: “On the Google 
Site… I fill it with material at each meeting… whatever the lecturer explains in class.” This represents 
continuous, iterative documentation, which is essential to portfolio pedagogy (Scully et al., 2018). 
Students were thus engaged in ongoing meaning-making rather than episodic task completion, and 
this iterative engagement enabled them to revisit, consolidate, and refine their understanding of course 
concepts over time. 

Creativity emerged as a strong dimension of the process. Students enjoyed designing their 
portfolios aesthetically and functionally. As one expressed: “Using e-portfolio is fun… I can hone my 
skills in editing or creating Google Sites.” Creativity is a documented outcome of portfolio-based 
learning because students have autonomy over design and representation (Douglas et al., 2019). The 
lecturer reinforced this observation by noting that students took pride in their work: “They are proud 
because they can make works like that,” signalling the motivational benefits of creative ownership in 
digital learning spaces. 

Nevertheless, the process revealed challenges. Students often described e-portfolio creation as 
time-consuming: “Making it takes a lot of energy and time… not only filling materials but also 
designing it.” This aligns with literature acknowledging the heavy workload associated with portfolio 
construction (Mihret et al., 2017). Technical issues such as embedding multimedia, template 
limitations, and unstable connectivity occasionally disrupted workflow, indicating areas where 
additional institutional support or training could be beneficial. 

The peer-feedback mechanism also faced difficulties. Students used Google Docs to comment on 
peers’ work, but participation varied. Some comments were repetitive or superficial, and in one case, 
all entries were lost due to technical failure. Research warns that unstructured feedback processes can 
limit portfolio effectiveness (Scully et al., 2018). This suggests a need for more explicit instructions, 
rubrics, and clearer expectations to strengthen the quality of peer review and ensure more meaningful 
engagement. 

Throughout the process, student agency and independence remained prominent. The lecturer 
observed growing student confidence in managing digital content, and students began exploring 
additional features of Google Sites independently. This reflects transformative learning processes 
where learners move from dependency to autonomy. The development of such autonomy is 
particularly valuable in ELT, where self-directed learning plays an important role in language 
acquisition and professional preparation (Amini & Kruger, 2022). 

In addition to these findings, the process evaluation highlighted the role of digital collaboration in 
shaping students’ learning experiences. Although Google Docs served as the primary platform for 
peer feedback, students’ participation demonstrated varying levels of engagement. Some students 
interacted actively, offering specific suggestions on organisation, accuracy of content, or page design, 
while others contributed only brief or repetitive comments. This inconsistency mirrors existing 
literature indicating that peer feedback in e-portfolio environments requires structured guidance to be 
effective  (Zhang & Tur, 2022). Without explicit rubrics or targeted prompts, students may struggle 
to provide meaningful critique, resulting in superficial interaction. 

Another important aspect observed in the process is the gradual development of students’ digital 
competencies. While many students initially expressed uncertainty regarding the technical features of 
Google Sites, their confidence increased over time as they explored templates, embedded multimedia, 
and experimented with layout design (Halim & Halim, 2024). One student noted that they “became 
more skilled in editing and arranging pages” after repeated practice, indicating that the e-portfolio 
process functioned not only as a documentation platform but also as a medium for digital skill 
building. This aligns with Modise and Mudau (Modise & Mudau, 2023), who argue that e-portfolios 
create opportunities for learners to grow technological fluency (Aghazadeh, 2020) by engaging with 
authentic digital tasks (Walland & Shaw, 2022). 

Finally, process evaluation revealed that the e-portfolio served as a mechanism for continual 
content review and reinforcement (Yang & Wong, 2024). Because students updated their portfolios 
weekly, they were repeatedly exposed to course concepts, which strengthened retention and 



184 English Language Teaching Educational Journal   ISSN 2621-6485 

 Vol. 8, No. 3, December 2025, pp. 177-191 

 Ali et al (Evaluating the implementation of E-portfolio-based learning in ELT Through …..) 

understanding. As one student explained, “indirectly, the e-portfolio makes me review the material 
and that is what makes us remember the material provided.” This practice reflects principles of 
iterative learning, where ongoing cycles of documentation, reflection, and revision deepen 
comprehension (Roberts, 2018). Revisiting previous entries also enabled students to identify progress, 
monitor understanding , and develop a stronger sense of academic responsibility—an outcome aligned 
with reflective learning theory (Veine et al., 2020). 

From a CIPP perspective, the process dimension demonstrated that the programme operated 
largely as intended, fostering active engagement, creativity, sustained documentation, collaboration, 
and reflective learning. Although challenges existed, they were generally manageable and provided 
important insights for future refinement, particularly in the areas of peer-feedback structure, technical 
support, and instructional scaffolding. 

3.4. Product Evaluation 

The product evaluation examined the outcomes generated through the e-portfolio programme. 
Students repeatedly reported improved understanding of course materials. One stated: “…after using 
the e-portfolio I feel that I understand the material better.” This aligns with research showing that 
reflective documentation promotes deep learning, conceptual clarity, and integration of course 
concepts (Aparicio-Ting et al., 2023). Reviewing and rewriting materials for their portfolio 
encouraged students to reconstruct information in their own words, strengthening conceptual 
internalisation and long-term retention (Al-rashidi et al., 2023) 

The lecturer observed similar benefits, noting improvements in organisation, creativity, and 
confidence: “Students find it helpful to put their archives and documents… they are proud and 
creative.” Thematically, students’ portfolios demonstrated enhanced digital literacy (Yin et al., 2025), 
including the ability to organise information hierarchically, embed links, and create multimedia 
content (Chan, 2020). Digital literacy is considered a crucial 21st-century competency, especially for 
students preparing for professional teaching roles (Syzdykova et al., 2021). These digital 
competencies were not explicitly taught as course objectives but emerged organically through 
students’ engagement with the e-portfolio platform. 

A particularly significant finding was the transferability of e-portfolio skills beyond the course. 
The lecturer noted: “Some use the e-portfolio for teaching, for campus teaching programmes… even 
for other subjects.” Transfer of learning is a hallmark of effective educational programmes (Roco & 
Barberà, 2022). The fact that students continued using Google Sites to organise teaching materials or 
document activities in other classes indicates that the programme produced functional and sustainable 
skills. This suggests that the e-portfolio contributed not only to learning performance in a single course 
but also to broader academic and professional development (López-Crespo et al., 2022). 

Nevertheless, the outcome dimension also revealed weaknesses. Students expressed concerns 
about the time demands of portfolio creation and design (Dalton, 2022). The peer-feedback system, 
although conceptually beneficial, required improvement to ensure meaningful critique (Bravo et al., 
2022). Another concern raised by the lecturer was academic integrity: “Students can easily copy their 
friends or just copy material from the internet.” This highlights the need for explicit instruction on 
citing digital materials and maintaining originality. The lecturer’s observations suggest that aspects of 
digital ethics, referencing, and proper attribution must be integrated into future iterations of the 
programme. 

Additional findings revealed that the e-portfolio also influenced students’ affective responses 
toward the course. Several students expressed pride, satisfaction, and enjoyment when viewing the 
final appearance of their digital portfolios (Chan, 2020), describing the experience as “fun” and 
“motivating” because they could personalise their work (Wong & Hughes, 2023). This aligns with 
research showing that portfolio-based learning enhances learner identity formation and fosters a sense 
of ownership (Goldsmith, 2007) students perceive their work as personally meaningful and visually 
appealing (Torres & Mckinley, 2023), they are more likely to engage deeply and consistently with the 
learning process (Song, 2021). 

Furthermore, the product evaluation suggested that the e-portfolio strengthened students’ 
metacognitive awareness. As students compiled weekly reflections and summaries, they became more 
aware of what they understood and what still needed clarification. One student reported that the e-
portfolio “makes me review the material and remember what the lecturer explained,” demonstrating 



ISSN 2621-6485 English Language Teaching Educational Journal 185 

         Vol. 8, No. 3, December 2025, pp. 177-191 

 Ali et al (Evaluating the implementation of E-portfolio-based learning in ELT Through …..) 

how reflective writing supports metacognitive monitoring. This outcome is consistent with Roberts 
(Roberts, 2018), who argues that reflective cycles help students evaluate their progress, identify 
weaknesses, and adjust learning strategies more effectively. 

Another notable product outcome relates to the visibility of learning. Because students’ progress 
was documented in a cumulative and organised manner, the lecturer could easily monitor individual 
development across the semester. He could also identify students who struggled, as incomplete or 
inconsistent portfolio entries provided visible indicators of learning gaps. This transparency enhanced 
the lecturer’s ability to provide targeted support or follow-up, making the e-portfolio not only an 
assessment tool but also a formative diagnostic instrument (Pospíšilová & Rohlíková, 2023). Visibility 
of learning outcomes is one of the key strengths of digital portfolio systems (Mgarbi et al., n.d.) and 
supports more responsive teaching practices . 

Despite these limitations, the product evaluation demonstrates that the programme achieved its 
intended goals: improving comprehension, fostering digital literacy, promoting creativity, 
strengthening independent learning, and enhancing learning visibility. According to Stufflebeam’s 
(Stufflebeam, 2003) criteria, these outcomes indicate strong programme effectiveness with 
manageable areas for improvement. Overall, the findings suggest that e-portfolio-based learning is 
viable, effective, and potentially scalable within broader ELT contexts in Indonesian higher education. 
Future refinements focusing on academic integrity, structured peer review, and streamlined digital 
support could enhance these outcomes further. 

Table 1.  Summary of CIPP-Based Evaluation Findings 

CIPP 
Component 

Key Findings Evidence Interpretation 

Context Pandemic challenges, documentation 
issues, engagement gaps. 

Lecturer & 
student quotes. 

Strong contextual need; aligns with 
reflective & self-regulated 
learning. 

Input Adequate digital tools; uneven 
connectivity; strong instructional 
scaffolding. 

Interview & 
observation. 

Inputs largely sufficient; consistent 
with digital readiness theory. 

Process High engagement, creativity, sustained 
documentation; time & technical 
challenges. 

Multiple student 
quotes. 

Reflective & constructivist 
learning; manageable barriers. 

Product Improved understanding, digital 
literacy, creativity, transferable skills. 

Lecturer & 
student insights. 

Programme effective; aligns with 
deep learning & digital 
competence. 

 

4. Conclusion 

The findings of this study demonstrate that the e-portfolio-based learning programme implemented 
in the Evaluation in ELT course was effective, relevant, and responsive to both pedagogical and 
contextual needs. The use of the CIPP evaluation model provided a comprehensive lens for analysing 
how the programme aligned with the realities of hybrid learning and the challenges faced by students 
during and after the COVID-19 pandemic. The context evaluation confirmed that the programme 
addressed critical issues related to low engagement, insufficient documentation, and the need for 
flexible access to learning materials. These findings underscore the importance of integrating digital 
learning tools in higher education, particularly in ELT contexts that require continuous reflection and 
scaffolded development of language and pedagogical skills. 

The input evaluation revealed that the combination of accessible digital platforms, adequate 
institutional infrastructure, and clear instructional preparation formed a strong foundation for the 
programme. Despite variations in students’ digital readiness and occasional connectivity problems, 
the availability of Google Sites, learning modules, and lecturer support contributed significantly to the 
programme’s success. The consistency between programme inputs and intended learning outcomes 
highlights the crucial role of resource readiness and digital scaffolding in facilitating meaningful 
engagement and learning autonomy. 



186 English Language Teaching Educational Journal   ISSN 2621-6485 

 Vol. 8, No. 3, December 2025, pp. 177-191 

 Ali et al (Evaluating the implementation of E-portfolio-based learning in ELT Through …..) 

The process evaluation showed that students engaged actively with e-portfolio tasks, constructed 
learning documentation consistently, and exercised creativity in designing and customising their 
portfolio pages. The iterative nature of the portfolio allowed students to revisit course concepts, 
connect ideas, and articulate reflective understanding. While challenges such as time constraints, 
technical difficulties, and inconsistent peer feedback emerged, these did not undermine the overall 
quality of the learning process. Instead, they offer important insights for refining instructional 
strategies, particularly in providing more structured peer-review frameworks and stronger technical 
support systems. 

The product evaluation confirmed substantial learning gains. Students reported improved 
understanding of course materials, enhanced digital literacy, greater reflective awareness, and 
transferable skills relevant to their academic and professional trajectories. The lecturer also observed 
increased confidence, creativity, and ownership among students, indicating the potential scalability of 
the programme across other ELT courses. Based on these findings, it is recommended that future 
implementations incorporate clearer guidelines for academic integrity, enhanced peer-feedback 
protocols, and additional institutional support for addressing digital inequities. Expanding e-portfolio 
integration across other ELT subjects and practicum activities may further strengthen students’ digital 
competence and professional readiness.  

5. Limitation and Future Research 

This study acknowledges several limitations that should be considered in interpreting its findings. 
The research was conducted within a single course at one university, which may limit the 
generalisability of the results to broader ELT contexts. The qualitative design, while effective for 
capturing rich experiences and contextual dynamics, did not include quantitative measures that could 
provide additional insights into learning outcomes, digital performance, or the statistical impact of e-
portfolio use. Furthermore, data were collected primarily from students and one lecturer, without 
incorporating perspectives from administrators or other instructors who may influence institutional 
policy or digital infrastructure. These factors suggest that the findings represent a contextualised, 
course-specific interpretation rather than a universal model. 

Future research may broaden the scope by implementing e-portfolios across multiple courses, 
institutions, or academic levels to examine their scalability and long-term impact. Mixed-methods 
designs combining qualitative insights with rubric-based assessments, learning analytics, or pre–post 
comparisons may offer more robust evidence of e-portfolio effectiveness. Researchers could also 
explore how e-portfolios support professional identity development, practicum readiness, and digital 
literacy across the ELT curriculum. Additionally, further investigation into digital equity, accessibility 
challenges, academic integrity, and sustainable peer-feedback mechanisms would help institutions 
refine policies and enhance the effectiveness of e-portfolio-based learning in diverse educational 
settings. 

 

 

Acknowledgment 

This program is financed by the Directorate of Research, Culture, and Community Service, Ministry 

of Education, Culture, Research, and Technology of the Republic of Indonesia for the 2024 fiscal 

year, with contract number 102/PFR/LPPM UAD/VI/2024. The authors also acknowledge limited 

use of AI-generated language assistance (ChatGPT) for minor editorial refinement. All research 

ideas, methodological decisions, and analytical interpretations were developed independently by the 

authors in accordance with academic integrity standards.  

Declarations 

Author contribution : The research was collaboratively undertaken by all authors, 
encompassing topic selection, proposal development, 
methodological application, data analysis, and the preparation of the 
discussion section.  



ISSN 2621-6485 English Language Teaching Educational Journal 187 

         Vol. 8, No. 3, December 2025, pp. 177-191 

 Ali et al (Evaluating the implementation of E-portfolio-based learning in ELT Through …..) 

Funding statement : This program is financed by the Directorate of Research, Culture, and 
Community Service, Ministry of Education, Culture, Research, and 
Technology of the Republic of Indonesia for the 2024 fiscal year, 
with contract number 102/PFR/LPPM UAD/VI/2024. 

Conflict of interest : We declare that there are no competing interests. 

Ethics Declaration : As the authors, we confirm that this work has been written based on 
ethical research principles in compliance with our university’s 
regulations and that the necessary permission was obtained from the 
relevant institution during data collection. We fully support ELTEJ’s 
commitment to upholding high standards of professional conduct and 
practicing honesty in all academic and professional activities.   

Additional 
information 

: No additional information is available for this paper. 

 

 

 

 
REFERENCES  

Afrilyasanti, R., Suhartoyo, E., & Widiati, U. (2024). Researching the use of e-portfolios to promote 

students thinking in digital age: a qualitative action study. Interactive Technology and Smart 

Education, ahead-of-p(ahead-of-print). https://doi.org/10.1108/ITSE-08-2023-0167    

Aghazadeh, Z. (2020). The Effect of E-portfolio on EFL Learners ’ Writing Accuracy , Fluency , and 

Complexity. 20(2), 182–199. 

Al-rashidi, H., Vadivel, B., Khalil, N. R., & Basim, N. (2023). The comparative impacts of portfolio 

‑ based assessment , self ‑ assessment , and scaffolded peer assessment on reading 

comprehension , vocabulary learning , and grammatical accuracy : insights from working 

memory capacity. Language Testing in Asia, 1–38. https://doi.org/10.1186/s40468-023-00237-

1  

Alenezi, M., Wardat, S., & Akour, M. (2023). The Need of Integrating Digital Education in Higher 

Education : Challenges and Opportunities. 1–12. https://doi.org/10.3390/su15064782  

Ali, R. M., Hastuti, D., Ananda, A. R., & Biddinika, M. K. (2024). Learning Speaking Using Google 

Sites-Based Eportfolio: Indonesian Student’S Experience. Exposure Journal, 197(1), 197–214. 

https://journal.unismuh.ac.id/index.php/exposure   

Ali, R. M., Narpaduita, P., Sanjani, M. I., Hastuti, D., Syam, U. K., & Biddinika, M. K. (2025). From 

struggles to strategies : Indonesian students ’ use of e- portfolios in public speaking courses 

through the lens of self-regulated learning and sociocultural theory. Journal of English 

Educators Society, 10(2), 135–144. https://doi.org/10.21070/jees.v10i2.1969  

Amin, M. M., & Paiman, N. (2022). University English Language Teachers’ Use of Digital Platforms 

for Online Teaching. International Journal of Emerging Technologies in Learning, 17(20), 

134–148. https://doi.org/10.3991/ijet.v17i20.31421  

Amini, M. A., & Kruger, C. G. (2022). The Role of Iranian EFL Teacher Autonomy and Reflectivity 

in Teacher Self-directed Learning : A Systematic Literature Review. 10(June 2021), 101–126. 

Aparicio-Ting, F. E., Arcellana-Panlilio, M., Bensler, H., Brown, B., Clancy, T. L., Dyjur, P., 

Radford, S., Redwood, C., Roberts, V., Sabbaghan, S., Schroeder, M., Summers, M. M., Tézli, 

A., Wilks, L., & Wright, A. C. (2023). Fostering Student Success in Online Courses. Taylor 

Institute for Teaching and Learning Guide Series. 

https://taylorinstitute.ucalgary.ca/resources/fostering-student-success-guide  

https://doi.org/10.1108/ITSE-08-2023-0167
https://doi.org/10.1186/s40468-023-00237-1
https://doi.org/10.1186/s40468-023-00237-1
https://doi.org/10.3390/su15064782
https://journal.unismuh.ac.id/index.php/exposure
https://doi.org/10.21070/jees.v10i2.1969
https://doi.org/10.3991/ijet.v17i20.31421
https://taylorinstitute.ucalgary.ca/resources/fostering-student-success-guide


188 English Language Teaching Educational Journal   ISSN 2621-6485 

 Vol. 8, No. 3, December 2025, pp. 177-191 

 Ali et al (Evaluating the implementation of E-portfolio-based learning in ELT Through …..) 

Barrot, J. S. (2025). Social Media as an E-Portfolio Platform. In L. McCallum & D. Tafazoli (Eds.), 

The Palgrave Encyclopedia of Computer-Assisted Language Learning (pp. 1–6). Springer 

Nature Switzerland. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-51447-0_174-1  

Bassam, Z., & Baniyounes, M. (2024). The Students are Also Invited : Portfolio Assessment and its 

Impact on EFL Learners ’ Critical Thinking , Growth Mindfulness , and Autonomy. 25(4), 604–

628. 

Beckers, J., Dolmans, D., & Merriënboer, J. Van. (2016). e-Portfolios enhancing students ’ self-
directed learning : A systematic review of influencing factors. 32(2), 32–46. 

https://doi.org/10.14742/ajet.2528  

Black, P., & Wiliam, D. (1998). Assessment and classroom learning. Assessment in Education: 

principles, policy & practice, 5(1), 7-74. https://doi.org/10.1080/0969595980050102  

Bravo, M. C., Chalezquer, C. S., & Puche, J. S. (2022). Dimensions of Digital Literacy in the 21st 

Century Competency Frameworks. 

Chan, Y. K. (2020). Social Media and E-Portfolios: Impacting Design Students’ Motivation Through 

Project-Based Learning. 8(3), 41–58. https://doi.org/10.22492/ije.8.3.03  

Chittum, J. (2018). The Theory-to-Practice ePortfolio: An Assignment to Facilitate Motivation and 

Higher Order Thinking. International Journal of EPortfolio, 8(1), 27–42. 

Ciesielkiewicz, M. (2019). Education for employability: the ePortfolio from school principals’ 

perspective. On the Horizon, 27(1), 46–56. https://doi.org/10.1108/OTH-01-2019-0001  

Dalton, G. M. (2022). Putting the ‘ e ’ in portfolio design : an intervention research project 

investigating how design students and faculty might jointly reimagine the design portfolio 

activity. International Journal of Technology and Design Education, 32(2), 1207–1225. 

https://doi.org/10.1007/s10798-020-09640-8  

Douglas, M. E., Peecksen, S., Rogers, J., & Simmons, M. (2019). College Students’ Motivation and 

Confidence for ePortfolio Use. International Journal of EPortfolio 2019, 9(1), 1–16. 

https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/EJ1214509.pdf  

Goldsmith, D. J. (2007). Enhancing learning and assessment through e-portfolios: A collaborative 

effort in Connecticut. New Directions for Student Services, 2007(119), 31–42. 

https://doi.org/10.1002/ss.247  

Gulden, R. Van Der, Heeneman, S., Kramer, A. W. M., Laan, R. F. J. M., & Haan, N. D. S. (2020). 

How is self-regulated learning documented in e-portfolios of trainees ? A content analysis. 4, 

1–13. 

Haggerty, C., & Thompson, T. (2017). The challenges of incorporating ePortfolio into an 

undergraduate nursing programme. Open Praxis, 9(2), 245. 

https://doi.org/10.5944/openpraxis.9.2.554  

Halim, A. A., & Halim, N. (2024). Exploring the integration and impact of google sites in teaching 

and learning : A structured scoping review. 5(1), 110–124. 

https://doi.org/10.55197/qjssh.v5iSI1.569  

Harun, R. N. S. R., Hanif, M. H., & Choo, G. S. (2021). The pedagogical affordances of e-portfolio 

in learning how to teach: A systematic review. Studies in English Language and Education, 

8(1), 1–15. https://doi.org/10.24815/siele.v8i1.17876  

Ho, W. Y. J., & Tai, K. W. H. (2020). Doing expertise multilingually and multimodally in online 

English teaching videos. System, 94, 102340. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.system.2020.102340  

Keshmiri, F., & Mehrparvar, A. H. (2023). The experiences of preparation and engagement of 

educators in teaching e-portfolio. BMC Medical Education, 23(1), 1–15. 

https://doi.org/10.1186/s12909-023-04642-1  

 

https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-51447-0_174-1
https://doi.org/10.14742/ajet.2528
https://doi.org/10.1080/0969595980050102
https://doi.org/10.22492/ije.8.3.03
https://doi.org/10.1108/OTH-01-2019-0001
https://doi.org/10.1007/s10798-020-09640-8
https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/EJ1214509.pdf
https://doi.org/10.1002/ss.247
https://doi.org/10.5944/openpraxis.9.2.554
https://doi.org/10.55197/qjssh.v5iSI1.569
https://doi.org/10.24815/siele.v8i1.17876
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.system.2020.102340
https://doi.org/10.1186/s12909-023-04642-1


ISSN 2621-6485 English Language Teaching Educational Journal 189 

         Vol. 8, No. 3, December 2025, pp. 177-191 

 Ali et al (Evaluating the implementation of E-portfolio-based learning in ELT Through …..) 

Kiffer, S., Bertrand, E., Eneau, J., & Gilliot, J.-M. (2021). Enhancing Learners ’ Autonomy With E-

Portfolios And Open Learner Models : A Literature Review. 1(1), 1–9. 

Kusuma, I. P. I., Mahayanti, N. W. S., Adnyani, L. D. S., & Budiarta, L. G. R. (2021). Incorporating 

E-portfolio with flipped classrooms: An in-depth analysis of students’ speaking performance 

and learning engagement. JALT CALL Journal, 17(2), 93–111. 

https://doi.org/10.29140/JALTCALL.V17N2.378  

Kusuma, I. P. I., & Waluyo, B. (2023). Language Teaching Research Enacting E-portfolios in Online 

English-Speaking Courses : Speaking Performance and Self-efficacy. 11(July 2022), 75–95. 

Lam, R. (2022). E-Portfolios for self-regulated and co-regulated learning: A review. Frontiers in 

Psychology, 13(November), 1–8. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2022.1079385  

Linda, O. C. (2025). STUFFLEBEAM ’ S CIPP MODEL OF EVALUATION. 1–24. 

López-Crespo, G., Blanco-Gandía, M. C., Valdivia-Salas, S., Fidalgo, C., & Sánchez-Pérez, N. 

(2022). The educational e-portfolio: preliminary evidence of its relationship with student’s self-

efficacy and engagement. Education and Information Technologies, 27(4), 5233–5248. 

https://doi.org/10.1007/s10639-021-10827-2  

Maya, F., & Wolf, K. D. (2024). An Architecture for Formative Assessment Analytics of Multimodal 

Artefacts in ePortfolios Supported by Artificial Intelligence. In M. Sahin & D. Ifenthaler (Eds.), 

Assessment Analytics in Education: Designs, Methods and Solutions (pp. 293–312). Springer 

International Publishing. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-56365-2_15  

Mgarbi, H., Chkouri, M. Y., & Tahiri, A. (n.d.). Purpose and Design of a Digital Environment for 
the Professional Insertion of Students Based on the E-portfolio Approach. 36–48. 

https://doi.org/10.3991/ijet.v17i01.26703  

Michikyan, M., Subrahmanyam, K., Regan, P., Ángel, M., Linda, C., Harkness, A., & Schwartz, S. 

J. (2025). Differences in and relationship between digital access , use , connectivity , skill , 

engagement , and motivation : implications for digital inequality in online learning among first 

‑ generation and continuing ‑ generation undergraduate students. Discover Education. 

https://doi.org/10.1007/s44217-024-00371-9    

Mihret, D. G., Abayadeera, N., Watty, K., & McKay, J. (2017). Teaching auditing using cases in an 

online learning environment: the role of ePortfolio assessment. Accounting Education, 26(4), 

335–357. https://doi.org/10.1080/09639284.2017.1292466   

Modise, M. E. P., & Mudau, P. K. (2023). Using E-Portfolios for Meaningful Teaching and Learning 

in Distance Education in Developing Countries: A Systematic Review. Journal of Continuing 

Higher Education, 71(3), 286–298. https://doi.org/10.1080/07377363.2022.2067731 

Muin, C. F., Hafidah, H., & Daraini, A. M. (2021). Students’ Perceptions on the Use of E-Portfolio 

for Learning Assessment. AL-ISHLAH: Jurnal Pendidikan, 13(1), 497–503. 

https://doi.org/10.35445/alishlah.v13i1.485   

Namaziandost, E., Alekasir, S., Hassan Mohammed Sawalmeh, M., & Miftah, M. Z. (2020). 

Investigating the Iranian EFL learners’ attitudes towards the implementation of e-portfolios in 

English learning and assessment. Cogent Education, 7(1). 

https://doi.org/10.1080/2331186X.2020.1856764   

Ni, Y., & Lam, R. (2025). Students ’ perceptions of multiliteracies development using AI-assisted 

portfolio assessment. Pedagogies: An International Journal, 00(00), 1–28. 

https://doi.org/10.1080/1554480X.2025.2545212  

Okuonghae, O., Igbinovia, M. O., & Adebayo, J. O. (2021). Technological Readiness and Computer 
Self-ef fi cacy as Predictors of E-learning Adoption by LIS Students in Nigeria. 1–13. 

https://doi.org/10.1515/libri-2020-0166  

 

https://doi.org/10.29140/JALTCALL.V17N2.378
https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2022.1079385
https://doi.org/10.1007/s10639-021-10827-2
https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-56365-2_15
https://doi.org/10.3991/ijet.v17i01.26703
https://doi.org/10.1007/s44217-024-00371-9
https://doi.org/10.1080/09639284.2017.1292466
https://doi.org/10.35445/alishlah.v13i1.485
https://doi.org/10.1080/2331186X.2020.1856764
https://doi.org/10.1080/1554480X.2025.2545212
https://doi.org/10.1515/libri-2020-0166


190 English Language Teaching Educational Journal   ISSN 2621-6485 

 Vol. 8, No. 3, December 2025, pp. 177-191 

 Ali et al (Evaluating the implementation of E-portfolio-based learning in ELT Through …..) 

Pospíšilová, L., & Rohlíková, L. (2023). Reforming higher education with ePortfolio 

implementation, enhanced by learning analytics. Computers in Human Behavior, 

138(November 2018). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2022.107449   

Rezadoust, H., Khaleh, S., Khalili, M., & Mahdavi, A. (2025). The Effects of E-portfolio , Paper-

based and Essay-writing assessments on Iranian EFL Learners ’ Motivation and Autonomy. 

13(July), 63–90. 

Rhodes, T. L. (2010). Making Learning Visible and Meaningful Through Electronic Portfolios. 

Change: The Magazine of Higher Learning, 43(1), 6–13. 

https://doi.org/10.1080/00091383.2011.538636   

Roberts, P. (2018). Developing reflection through an ePortfolio-based learning environment: design 

principles for further implementation. Technology, Pedagogy and Education, 27(3), 313–326. 

https://doi.org/10.1080/1475939X.2018.1447989   

Roco, M., & Barberà, E. (2022). ePortfolio to promote networked learning: an experience in the Latin 

American context. International Journal of Educational Technology in Higher Education, 

19(1). https://doi.org/10.1186/s41239-022-00336-8    

Romero, L., Saucedo, C., Caliusco, M. L., & Gutiérrez, M. (2019). Supporting self-regulated 

learning and personalization using ePortfolios : a semantic approach based on learning paths. 

1–16. https://doi.org/10.1186/s41239-019-0146-1  

Salas-Pilco, S. Z., Yang, Y., & Zhang, Z. (2022). Student engagement in online learning in Latin 

American higher education during the COVID-19 pandemic: A systematic review. British 

Journal of Educational Technology, 53(3), 593–619. https://doi.org/10.1111/bjet.13190  

Scully, D., O’leary, M., & Brown, M. (2018). The Learning Portfolio in Higher Education “A Game 

of Snakes and Ladders.” In The Learning Portfolio in Higher Education “A Game of Snakes 

and Ladders” (Issue March). https://doi.org/10.13140/RG.2.2.18883.71208  

Sitthimongkolchai, N., Viriyavejakul, C., & Tuntiwongwanich, S. (2022). Blended Experiential 

Learning with e-Portfolios Learning to Enhance Creative Imagination. 6, 25–39. 

https://doi.org/10.28991/ESJ-2022-SIED-03  

Sobko, T., & Brown, G. (2019). Reflecting on personal data in a health course: Integrating wearable 

technology and ePortfolio for eHealth. Australasian Journal of Educational Technology, 35(3), 

55–70. https://doi.org/10.14742/ajet.4027  

Song, B. K. (2021). E-portfolio implementation: Examining learners’ perception of usefulness, self-

directed learning process and value of learning. Australasian Journal of Educational 

Technology, 37(1), 68–81. https://doi.org/10.14742/ajet.6126  

Stufflebeam, D. L. (2003). The CIPP Model for Evaluation. International Handbook of Educational 

Evaluation, 31–62. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-010-0309-4_4  

Syzdykova, Z., Koblandin, K., Mikhaylova, N., & Akinina, O. (2021). Assessment of Learning in 

Higher Education. IJET, 16(02), 120–134. https://doi.org/10.4018/978-1-5225-5712-8.ch011  

Torres, J. T., & Mckinley, M. C. (2023). From Review to Practice : Implementing ePortfolio 

Research in Professional Identity Formation. 13(1), 1–9. 

Tosun, N. (2011). E-Portfolio Applications in Education E-Portfolio Applications in Education. 

TOJNED : The Online Journal Of New Horizons In Education, 1(4), 42–52. 

Tur, G., Urbina, S., & Forteza, D. (2019). Rubric-based formative assessment in process eportfolio: 

Towards self-regulated learning. Digital Education Review, 35, 18–35. 

https://doi.org/10.1344/der.2019.35.18-35  

Vaishnav, P. B. (2024). Current Trends and Future Prospects in English Language Teaching ( ELT 

). 50(7), 1–10. https://doi.org/10.9734/ajess/2024/v50i71438  

 

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2022.107449
https://doi.org/10.1080/00091383.2011.538636
https://doi.org/10.1080/1475939X.2018.1447989
https://doi.org/10.1186/s41239-022-00336-8
https://doi.org/10.1186/s41239-019-0146-1
https://doi.org/10.1111/bjet.13190
https://doi.org/10.13140/RG.2.2.18883.71208
https://doi.org/10.28991/ESJ-2022-SIED-03
https://doi.org/10.14742/ajet.4027
https://doi.org/10.14742/ajet.6126
https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-010-0309-4_4
https://doi.org/10.4018/978-1-5225-5712-8.ch011
https://doi.org/10.1344/der.2019.35.18-35
https://doi.org/10.9734/ajess/2024/v50i71438


ISSN 2621-6485 English Language Teaching Educational Journal 191 

         Vol. 8, No. 3, December 2025, pp. 177-191 

 Ali et al (Evaluating the implementation of E-portfolio-based learning in ELT Through …..) 

Veine, S., Anderson, M. K., Andersen, N. H., Espenes, C., Søyland, T. B., Wallin, P., Reams, J., 

Veine, S., Anderson, M. K., Andersen, N. H., Espenes, C., Søyland, T. B., Wallin, P., & 

Reflection, J. R. (2020). Reflection as a core student learning activity in higher education - 

Insights from nearly two decades of academic development. International Journal for 

Academic Development, 25(2), 147–161. https://doi.org/10.1080/1360144X.2019.1659797  

Walland, E., & Shaw, S. (2022). E-portfolios in teaching, learning and assessment: tensions in theory 

and praxis. Technology, Pedagogy and Education, 31(3), 363–379. 

https://doi.org/10.1080/1475939X.2022.2074087  

Wardani, H. K., Darusuprapti, F., & Hajaroh, M. (2022). 446-1-2237-1-10-20220129. 6(1), 36–49. 

https://doi.org/10.28926/riset_konseptual.v6i1.446  

White, A. (2019). ePortfolios : Integrating Learning , Creating Connections and Authentic 

Assessments Author Griffith Research Online Chapter 10 : ePortfolios : Integrating learning , 

creating connections and authentic assessments. In Blended Learning Designs in STEM Higher 

EducationPutting Learning First. Griffith University. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-13-

6982-7  

Wong, J. T., & Hughes, B. S. (2023). Leveraging learning experience design : digital media 

approaches to influence motivational traits that support student learning behaviors in 

undergraduate online courses. In Journal of Computing in Higher Education (Vol. 35, Issue 3). 

Springer US. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12528-022-09342-1  

Yang, H., & Wong, R. (2024). An In-Depth Literature Review of E-Portfolio Implementation in 

Higher Education: Processes, Barriers, and Strategies. Issues and Trends in Learning 

Technologies, 12(1), 65–101. https://doi.org/10.2458/itlt.5809  

Yin, A., Chan, W., Cheung, C., & Sung, M. (2025). Enhancing students ’ digital literacy skills 

through their technology use in a course ‑ based research project : a Hong Kong case study. 

Asia Pacific Education Review, 0123456789. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12564-025-10038-1  

Zhang, P., & Tur, G. (2022). Educational e-Portfolio Overview: Aspiring for the Future by Building 

on the Past. IAFOR Journal of Education, 10(3), 51–74. https://doi.org/10.22492/ije.10.3.03  

Zimmerman, B. (1990). Goal Setting and Self-Efficacy During Self-Regulated Learning. 

Educational Psychologist, 25(1), 3–17. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15326985ep2501   

https://doi.org/10.1080/1360144X.2019.1659797
https://doi.org/10.1080/1475939X.2022.2074087
https://doi.org/10.28926/riset_konseptual.v6i1.446
https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-13-6982-7
https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-13-6982-7
https://doi.org/10.1007/s12528-022-09342-1
https://doi.org/10.2458/itlt.5809
https://doi.org/10.1007/s12564-025-10038-1
https://doi.org/10.22492/ije.10.3.03
https://doi.org/10.1207/s15326985ep2501

	1. Introduction
	2. Method
	2.1. Research Design
	2.2. Setting and Participants
	2.3. Instruments
	2.4. Data Collection Procedures
	2.5. Data Analysis
	2.6. Trustworthiness
	2.7. Evaluation Framework: CIPP Model

	3. Finding and Discussion
	3.1. Context Evaluation
	3.2. Input Evaluation
	3.3. Process Evaluation
	3.4. Product Evaluation

	4. Conclusion
	5. Limitation and Future Research
	Acknowledgment


