Conclusion
Miles Kimball (2005) suggests, "Portfolios [in general] encourage students to take control of and responsibility for their own learning" (p.437). He continues by suggesting that students grow as lifelong learners by managing their work, by using their discretion to choose which artifacts show their accomplishments, and by explaining how those artifacts show learning (p. 437). We, as teachers, cannot deny the value of electronic portfolios. But, eportfolios are technologies. Technologies abide by a few conventions, not necessarily physical conventions, but the theoretical conventions discussed above. As we evolve with technology, we must consider and apply technological theories to seek what is apparent in other technologies, things such as unintended consequences, symbiotic relationships with users, collapse and decay over time, and even repair, as well as other concerns.

Some connections to eportfolios and other teaching technologies are obvious, for example: Technologies demand technicians; moreover, technology always needs repair. Therefore, there needs to be a technician (e.g., Marx and Ellul), a student, a system administrator, or someone who knows technology. Others connections may not be so obvious: For example, with technology there are social implications: a cultural world (Heidegger), where there is one who creates, one who uses the technology, and the critic. As a discipline, we need to contemplate these issues and their outcomes. For example, theorists, such as Robert Johnson in User-Centered Design and Donald Norman in The Design of Everyday Things, consider the interactions between the technological world and the social world much more closely with respect to creating products. Perhaps scholars in our discipline can study these implications for eportfolios as well.

Finally, in applying technological theory, we can recognize important facets of eportfolios from a theoretical standpoint as well as a pedagogical one. Using our technological lens, we can improve our use of eportfolios in the writing classroom. Likewise, we can improve our understanding of eportfolios in general. We need to recognize differences between paper and electronic mediums, and we see the role of the student change from simple creator/writer to technician and beyond. We need to recognize eportfolios as tools and as a means of changing the social climate of the classroom and even the practices of our social spaces (e.g. the classroom).

References

Blair, K. and Hoy, C. (2006). "Paying attention to adult learnings online: the pedagogy and politics of community." Computers and composition. 23 (2006): 32-48.

Bolter, J. (2001). Writing space: computer, hypertext, and the remediation of print. second edition. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Bolter, J. and Grusin, R. (2000). Remediation. Cambridge: MIT.

Lane, C. (2009). "Technology and Change." In Cambridge, D., Cambridge, B., and Yancey, K. Electronic portfolios 2.0: emergent research and implementation and impact. Sterling: Stylus. 149-154.

DeCerteau, M. (1988). The practice of everyday life. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press.

Elbow, P. and Belanoff, P. (1986) "Portfolios as a substitute for proficiency examinations." College composition and communication. 37.3 (October 1986): 336-339.

Ellul, J. (1967). The technological society. New York, NY: Vintage.

Emig, J. (1977 May). “Writing as a mode of learning.” College composition and communication. 28(2), 122-28.

Feenberg, A. (1991). Critical theory of technology. New York, NY: Oxford.

Gee, J. P. (2003). What video games have to teach us about literacy. New York, NY: Palgrave Macmillan.

Hawisher, G. and Selfe, C. (1997). “Wedding the technologies of writing portfolios and computers: the challenges of electronic classrooms.” In K.
Yancey and I. Welser (Eds). Situating portfolios: four perspectives. (p.305-321) Logan, UT: Utah State University.

Heidegger, M. (1977) “The question concerning technology.” In M. Heidegger (Ed.). The question concerning technology and other essays. (p. 3-35). New York, NY: Harper and Row.

Johnson, G. & DiBiase, D. (2004). Keeping the hours before the cart: penn state's portfolio initiative. EDUCAUSE quarterly, 27(4), 18-26.

Johnson, R. (1998). User-Centered technology: a rhetorical theory for computers and other mundane artifacts. Albany, NY: State University of New York Press.

Kimball, M. (2005). "Database e-portfolio systems: a critical appraisal." Computers and composition. 22 (2005): 434-458.

Kress, Gunther. “Multimodality.” (2002). In B. Cope and M. Kalantz (Eds.). Multiliteracies: literacy learning and the design of social futures. (p.3-35). New York, NY: Routledge. 182-202.

Lorenzo, G. & Ittelson, J. (2005). An overview of eportfolios. The EDUCAUSE learning initiative. Retrieved May 18, 2007, from http://www.educase.edu/LibraryDetailPage/666?ID=ELI3001

Marx, K. (1965). Capital: a critical analysis of capitalist production, volume one. F. Engels (Ed.). New York, NY: International Publishers.

Miller, C. (1978). “Technology as a form of consciousness.” Central states speech journal. 29 (Winter 1978): 228-236.

Norman, D. (1990). The Design of Everyday Things. New York, NY: Currency.

Ong, W. (1988). Orality and Literacy: The Technologizing of the Word. New York, NY: Routledge.

Pollan, M. (2002). The Botany of Desire: A Plant’s-Eye View of the World. New York, NY: Random House.

Pullman, G. (2002). "Electronic portfolios revisited: the efolios project." Computers and composition. 19 (2002): 151-169.

Reynolds, N. (2000). Portfolio Teaching. New York, NY: Bedford/St. Martin’s Press.

Yancey, K. (2004). "Postmodernism, palimpsest, and portfolios: theoretical issues in the representation of student work." College composition and communication. 55(4): 738-761.