Context For portfolio as a learning tool to be implemented effectively, it needs to be embedded in a system of guidance and support (Snadden & Thomas, 1998; Driessen et al. 2003; Driessen et al.2007). However, for practical reasons it is not always possible to provide this support through regular face-to-face meetings, especially when students do clinical clerkships abroad or when tutors are only part-time present in the medical school because of clinical duties. E-tutoring of e-portfolios seems to be a promising practical solution to deal with this difficulty (Duque, 2006). In 2002, the medical school at K.U. Leuven (Belgium) introduced an e-portfolio for the students in the General Practice Program. Tutors, all members of the teaching staff, were asked to provide electronic (e-mail) feedback on the portfolios at least three times a year. Research on educational innovation shows that the actual implementation of an innovative practice largely depends on its interpretation by the users (Hopkins, 2001). Reconstructing users’ sense-making of the innovation gives insight in the actual form of implementation and makes it possible to draw conclusions for further improvement of the innovative practice, i.c. the implementation of electronic tutoring of portfolios. Research Question This study aimed at analyzing the interpretation and evaluation processes (sense-making) of the e-tutoring of e-portfolios by the two categories of people involved, i.c. the students and the tutors. More particularly we wanted to know whether electronic feedback is a feasible and less time consuming alternative for face-to-face contacts in electronic portfolio guidance. Methodology: see section Methodology Results Students and tutors were found to have different interpretations of the function of a portfolio. Students mainly used the portfolio as an “archive” (Deketelaere, et al 2007), in which to collect and store all kinds of potentially interesting items. The tutors emphasized more its potential for stimulating reflection and for providing personal professional guidance. Students paid more attention to the job related assignments in the portfolio (i.c. the clinical case reports) while tutors focused their feedback on the reflective reports. The electronic format had as a consequence that students expected rather quick feedback which was not always the case. Tutors found reading a portfolio and carefully formulating written feedback rather time consuming and difficult (contrary to the expectation that it would save time). For these reasons they kept their feedback at a rather general level, emphasizing supportive and encouraging messages. They didn’t trust themselves to be straightforward, challenging or confronting in their feedback, because they had no information about the effect it might have on the student. There was a significant difference in the use of and attitude towards the portfolio among students who received regular feedback compared to those who never or only rarely received feedback. Conclusion: see section conclusions

Students’ perspectives were studied through an electronic questionnaire on students’ actual use, perception and evaluation of the portfolio and the electronic feedback they received. The questionnaire was a combination of statements (10-points Likert scale) and open-ended questions. All the students involved in the portfolio project (N: 271) were included. Response rate was 43 %. The 14 tutors accepted to participate in a semi-structured qualitative interview (30 to 45 minutes). The interview topics included the tutor’s perceptions and evaluation of the portfolio, of his/her role as a tutor and of his/her practice of giving electronic feedback. All interviews were transcribed and interpretatively analyzed. The analysis included a with-in case analysis (every single tutor) and an across-case-analysis (comparative analysis of all respondents) (Miles & Huberman, 1994). Member check and communicative validation by the tutors were used to control the quality of the analysis.

Conclusion Although both students and teachers prefer an electronic portfolio over a paper version, they both have rather different perceptions and evaluations of the tool. Our study confirms and explains the results in the literature that tutors find it hard to provide electronic feedback on a regular base (Ducque, 2006) Electronic feedback seems to be a valuable venue for motivating students to work on their portfolio. But it is a misconception that electronic portfolio feedback would be a timesaving alternative for face-to-face contacts. Those face-to-face contacts seem to be a necessary complement if the tutoring aims at resulting in effective personal professional guidance.