The theoretical cornerstone of this study is Albert Bandura’s (1977; 1997) theory of self-efficacy, defined as an individual’s belief in their capacity to organise and execute the actions required to achieve specific outcomes. Within higher education, self-efficacy shapes students’ willingness to engage with challenging tasks, their persistence in the face of difficulty, and ultimately their level of performance (Klassen & Usher, 2010). Crucially, self-efficacy is not equivalent to competence: a student may possess genuine skills yet lack the belief or the language to claim and communicate them.

Bandura (1997) identifies four primary sources through which self-efficacy beliefs are built and modified. First, mastery experiences, understood as direct encounters with success, constitute the most powerful source; when students successfully complete a challenging reflective or presentational task, their belief in their ability to repeat that success is reinforced. Second, vicarious experiences enable efficacy beliefs to develop through observing peers successfully navigate similar challenges. Third, verbal persuasion from trusted others, such as teachers, peers, or mentors, can strengthen a student’s belief in their own capabilities. Fourth, physiological and affective states, including anxiety or emerging confidence, influence how individuals interpret and regulate their experiences.

In the ePortfolio context, all four sources can be deliberately activated by design. Reflection exercises and structured workshops create mastery experiences; peer observation and collaborative activities produce vicarious learning; feedback from facilitators and peers provides verbal persuasion; and the managed movement from anxiety to confidence through scaffolded tasks attends directly to affective states. The present study uses these four sources as both a design rationale and an analytical framework, consistent with their application in the related institutional report (Schow & Nyvoll, 2025).

Empirical support for this foundation continues to accumulate: Putri & Utami (2023) report a significant positive relationship between self-efficacy and perceived future employability among university graduates, confirming that Bandura’s framework retains active explanatory power in contemporary career research.

An ePortfolio may be understood as a structured digital platform that documents a student’s professional development over time, combining concrete artefacts such as essays, project reports, presentations with reflective commentary. It functions simultaneously as a product and as a process: as a product it makes learning visible to external audiences; as a process it invites metacognitive engagement and the integrated understanding of competencies across subjects and experiences (Bryant & Chittum, 2013).

Internationally, ePortfolios have been used in education for several decades, with particular strength in teacher education, design, health, and technology fields (Bryant & Chittum, 2013). In Norway, adoption has proceeded more slowly. Some institutions have piloted ePortfolios in various disciplines, and a recent doctoral study demonstrated that ePortfolios can be especially effective in enabling students to recognise and articulate competencies they had previously been unaware of (Olstad, 2024). Several studies also point to the portfolio’s potential in a lifelong learning perspective: when students can carry their portfolio beyond graduation, it becomes an instrument for continuous professional documentation (Cambridge, 2010; Slepcevic-Zach & Stock, 2018).

The combination of WIL and the portfolio method as a unified pedagogical strategy has been theorised explicitly by Pennbrant and Nunstedt (2018), who propose a six-phase reflective model that moves from pre-reflection through reflection-in-action, reflection-on-action, self-evaluation, and meta-reflection, to knowledge-in-action. Within this model, the portfolio functions as the structural scaffold that makes each phase visible and documentable. Developed in the context of nursing education, the model demonstrates that when portfolios are integrated into WIL rather than appended to it, students develop not only discipline-specific competencies, but the metacognitive and communicative skills required for professional identity formation. Pennbrant and Nunstedt (2018) also connect self-efficacy directly to the portfolio method, arguing that the method’s emphasis on self-regulation and instructional scaffolding understood as the provision of structured support while gradually releasing responsibility to the learner, creates conditions for the kind of self-efficacy development that Bandura (1997) describes. This theoretical synthesis resonates strongly with the present study’s design and positions the ePortfolio not as a separate digital artefact but as the instrument through which a WIL-oriented reflective process is organised and made transferable to career contexts.

Challenges are equally well documented. Technological barriers, including platform usability and post-graduation access, can inhibit adoption. Students unfamiliar with reflective practice may struggle initially, and institutional implementation requires sustained investment in pedagogical support, digital infrastructure, and staff development (Bryant & Chittum, 2013; Meyer et al., 2011). From an employer perspective, awareness of ePortfolios remains low and adoption in recruitment processes is limited, with time-cost in reviewing and questions of authenticity cited as the primary barriers (Mitchell et al., 2021). Notably, however, the same systematic scoping review found that when employers do engage with ePortfolios, they consistently value precisely the elements the present project was designed to develop: evidence of professional work, reflective content, photographs, and clear self-presentation skills. This suggests that the pedagogical investment made on the student side has documented potential value on the employer side, even where that value has yet to be fully activated in practice.

Alongside self-efficacy theory, the study draws on the concept of pre-professional identity (PPI) and its relationship to personal branding in contemporary labour markets. Jackson (2017) defines PPI as a less mature version of professional identity, characterising students as ‘becoming, rather than being, a professional’, a state that encompasses awareness of professional standards and values, self-esteem, confidence, the capacity for self-reflection, and the ability to articulate one’s competencies to relevant audiences. In a qualitative study of 105 business undergraduates, including a substantial HRM cohort, Jackson found that WIL experiences can foster the early stages of PPI by exposing students to professional norms, enabling them to appraise their own strengths and weaknesses, and building confidence through authentic professional interaction. Critically, Jackson explicitly validates non-placement WIL, including simulations, role plays, and structured peer learning, as capable of generating comparable PPI development to traditional workplace placements, a finding directly relevant to the present study’s design.

Jackson (2017) draws on Baxter Magolda’s (1998) self-authorship framework to trace PPI development across four stages: following formulas, where students respond to and absorb cues from authority figures; crossroads, where internal questioning begins; self-authored, where students develop a stable internal voice and professional stance; and internal foundations, where professional and personal identities are reconciled. Most undergraduate students in Jackson’s study operated at the following formulas stage where they were not yet challenging the professional world, they were entering but actively building the foundational awareness of it. This staging is important for interpreting the present study’s results: students who, after three workshops, describe discovering strengths they did not know they had, or articulating their own professional story for the first time, are exhibiting precisely this movement from pre-reflective awareness toward the early stages of self-authorship.

The concept of personal branding refers to the deliberate process by which individuals articulate their unique professional identity and communicate it to targeted audiences (Khedher, 2019). Jones and Leverenz (2017) show how digital storytelling ePortfolios help students construct persuasive and authentic self-presentations that communicate more than a CV can. Together, these perspectives converge on a shared insight: ePortfolios, when designed to support both structured reflection and intentional self-presentation, simultaneously develop students’ internal sense of professional identity and their external capacity to articulate it. This dual function is precisely what the present study’s three-workshop design was structured to enable.

The study is designed as a two-phase exploratory case study (Yin, 2018) situated within a single institutional context. Phase one (the pilot study) was exploratory and generative: its findings were used to refine the pedagogical design, with three specific modifications implemented before Phase two (the main study). This iterative relationship between phases strengthens the study’s internal coherence while remaining consistent with the bounded, context-specific nature of case study inquiry. The two phases can be understood as embedded cases within the same overall case, namely ePortfolio development as a WIL tool in Norwegian business education, each addressing the same research question under different conditions (voluntary versus compulsory participation).

Both studies center on three structured workshops. Workshop One (Identity Mapping) uses Competency Cards, which are physical cards representing different professional skills, to guide students through a structured self-assessment and peer validation exercise, producing a personalised skills profile. Workshop Two (Visual and Technical Expression) involves students creating personalised websites on a digital platform, incorporating professional photographic portraits. Workshop Three (Presentation and Professional Interaction) constituted the study’s most direct WIL element: professional recruiters from the labour market were invited into the classroom to conduct individual simulated job interviews with each student. The interviews were based on real, current job advertisements that students had selected themselves, and students used their completed ePortfolio actively during the interview. Following each interview, students received structured feedback from both the recruiter and from fellow students who acted as trained observers. This design brought an authentic industry voice directly into the learning space, providing the kind of employer-connected, practice-oriented experience that WIL frameworks identify as central to professional preparation (Zegwaard et al., 2023). The three-workshop sequence as a whole reflects, in condensed form, the reflective progression theorised by Pennbrant and Nunstedt (2018): Workshop One functions as structured pre-reflection and reflection-in-action; Workshop Two engages reflection-on-action and self-evaluation through building and curating the portfolio; and Workshop Three enacts meta-reflection and knowledge-in-action as students present and defend their ePortfolio in a real professional encounter with industry.

In the pilot study, professional portraits were taken in a rented photography studio. In the main study, second-year students from a photography program at the same institution took the portraits, making the collaboration inter-departmental. Additional guidance time was provided in the main study, including sessions with a student assistant who had participated in the pilot, to support technical development and facilitate a longer maturation process.

In both phases, students translated insights from the workshops, particularly increased self-awareness and newly identified strengths, into their ePortfolios through reflective texts and professional images. This process fostered a stronger sense of ownership over their competencies and enabled more structured, career-oriented self-presentation. The portfolios were hosted on a digital platform accessible after graduation, allowing for continued development and use in job-seeking contexts. In the main study, ePortfolio development was integrated as a compulsory 15 ECTS component within a final-semester module. The three workshops were distributed over a 12-week period, combining guided sessions with independent work on the digital platform.

The pilot study (autumn 2024) comprised seven voluntary participants from business-related programmes. Data collection included: (a) semi-structured individual interviews before the first workshop and after the final workshop, exploring participants’ self-perceptions, concerns, and retrospective assessments; and (b) structured non-participant field observations across all three workshops, conducted independently by both researchers to strengthen reliability (Malterud, 2017; Postholm, 2020). Field notes were compared immediately after each session to identify areas of agreement and discrepancy.

All data material, including interview transcripts and field notes, was subjected to conventional qualitative content analysis (Hsieh & Shannon, 2005). Codes were generated inductively without pre-defined categories, allowing participants’ meanings to shape the analysis. Field observations were used to triangulate and contextualise the themes emerging from the interviews.

The transition from the pilot to the main study reflects a shift toward a more fully embedded Work-Integrated Learning (WIL) design. While the pilot involved voluntary participation from a small, self-selecting group, the main study integrated the ePortfolio process as a compulsory curricular component, aligning with WIL principles emphasising structured, curriculum-based engagement (Zegwaard et al., 2023). This reduced selection bias and strengthened constructive alignment (Biggs & Tang, 2011), but also introduced tensions related to student autonomy and motivation (Jackson, 2017). Key refinements included smaller groups, extended timeframes, and the localisation of materials, including translation into Norwegian and the adaptation of competency cards inspired by OPQ frameworks. While these changes improved scalability and relevance, differences in participation conditions complicate direct comparison. Notably, most students indicated they would not have engaged voluntarily, suggesting that compulsory integration may be necessary to realise the intended WIL outcomes.

Analysis of the pilot data revealed patterns that aligned closely with Bandura’s (1997) four sources of self-efficacy, suggesting that the framework had explanatory power for the phenomena observed. This informed the analytical approach adopted in the main study.

The main study (spring 2025) integrated ePortfolio development as a compulsory assessed element within the final semester of a Bachelor of HRM programme. Eighteen students were enrolled in the module. The primary data source was a detailed written evaluation administered via a digital survey platform (Nettskjema) at the end of the module, combining Likert-scale items with open-ended qualitative questions. Of the 18 enrolled students, 17 completed the quantitative survey, representing a 94% response rate. Open-ended qualitative responses from all participating students are included in the qualitative analysis. Quantitative data were analysed descriptively. Open-ended responses were analysed using directed content analysis (Hsieh & Shannon, 2005), guided by Bandura’s (1997) four self-efficacy sources as a theory-driven coding framework, consistent with the analysis in the related institutional report (Schow & Nyvoll, 2025).

The study followed established ethical guidelines for research involving human participants. All participants were informed of the study’s purpose, their right to withdraw at any time, and the measures taken to protect confidentiality. Written informed consent was obtained prior to data collection. Participant identities were protected through anonymisation and the assignment of pseudonyms. Data were stored securely in accordance with institutional data protection requirements,

and the project was reported to and assessed by SIKT, the national agency responsible for data protection compliance in Norwegian research. Approval to process personal data was granted prior to data collection.

A fundamental boundary on the study’s claims concerns data coverage:

While the study’s WIL design included the participation of professional recruiters in Workshop Three, making industry engagement a genuine feature of the programme, no data was collected from those recruiters about their own experience of the activity, their assessment of the students’ ePortfolios, or their views on the tool’s value for recruitment. The study therefore captures the student-side perspective on this WIL encounter. The recruiter-side perspective, namely what employers make of ePortfolios developed through this kind of process, and whether participation in such activities changes their views on ePortfolios as recruitment tools, is explicitly identified as a priority direction for future research (see Conclusions).

The researchers occupied dual roles as both facilitators in the institutional context and as researchers. In the pilot, external facilitators were responsible for delivering the workshops, whereas the two researchers attended only as non-participatory observers. Despite this separation of roles, the researchers’ institutional affiliations may still have shaped how students responded.

The pilot’s small sample of seven self-selecting participants limits transferability. In the main study, 18 students were enrolled in the module and 17 completed the structured survey (94% response rate), which increases credibility, but the single-institution, single-programme context means findings should be treated as indicative rather than generalisable.

As a case study situated within a single institution and programme, the findings are best understood as transferable rather than generalisable (Yin, 2018). Readers in comparable contexts, particularly Norwegian business education programmes considering ePortfolio integration, may find the design replicable, but claims about effects beyond this context require further investigation.

A specific data gap concerns the professional recruiters who participated in Workshop Three: while their involvement as industry partners was an integral WIL component of the programme design, no data were collected from them regarding their experience of the activity, their observations of students using ePortfolios in the interview context, or their assessment of the tool’s value. This constitutes a meaningful boundary on what the study can claim about the WIL-system perspective and is identified as a priority for future research.

Three principal themes emerged from the thematic analysis of the pilot interviews and observations (Table 1).

Theme 1: Increased self-awareness. All seven participants reported that the ePortfolio process provided clearer insight into their own strengths, and several identified competencies they had not previously recognised or valued. The Competency Cards exercise in Workshop One was consistently cited as a turning point. As one participant reflected:

The activity with the cards, where we had to choose six skills that best described us, really made me reflect on who I am as a person. Now, I think about it this way: I have this soft skill, I understand why it’s valuable, and I see how it benefits me.

Theme 2: Presenting skills. Participants reported increased confidence in presenting themselves and their competencies across formal and informal contexts, with peer feedback identified as a key mechanism:

It helped me a lot, both by making me aware of my strengths and, most importantly, by hearing from others what they think about me. I became more confident that I have it within me and that I can talk about it (…) I have gained a clearer picture of how I can present myself (…) I feel more confident now when I must sell myself to future employers.

Theme 3: New value for the career. Students came to see the ePortfolio as a substantive career tool distinct from a CV, capable of evidencing soft skills, communicating professional identity, and providing concrete material for job application processes:

I didn’t necessarily see myself as someone who had a lot of concrete experience in various things, but after the process, I have much more to show for it, and I feel much more confident in applying for jobs that might have seemed beyond my reach before. It also made me more self-assured.

Observations during the workshops confirmed these patterns. Students who entered Workshop One in a visibly uncertain state and reluctant to share their cards in the group activity showed markedly different body language and verbal fluency by the simulated job interview in Workshop Three. Observers also noted the affective impact of receiving professional photographs: multiple students commented spontaneously that seeing themselves presented professionally changed how they felt about their own professional identity.

The main study findings supported the patterns identified in the pilot and extended them to a larger, non-self-selecting cohort, while also providing systematic quantitative support for each of Bandura’s (1997) four self-efficacy sources. Taken together, the findings can be understood as empirical illustration of Bandura’s four sources of self-efficacy within a WIL context. Quantitative data are reported from the 17 respondents who completed the structured survey (94% of the 18 enrolled students). Open-ended qualitative responses drawn below include material from all participating students where available.

When asked retrospectively to recall their confidence prior to the course, not a single respondent described themselves as ‘very confident’ in identifying and communicating their skills and qualifications. 35% described themselves as ‘a little uncertain’ and a further 18% reported feeling ‘neither confident nor uncertain’, meaning that more than half of participants (53%) recalled entering the module with a meaningful confidence gap. By contrast, 77% of respondents reported that the ePortfolio workshops had a large or very large positive effect on their confidence in presenting their competencies, with no respondent reporting a negative effect. 82% of respondents said their experience of building the ePortfolio was better than they had expected, with 29% said it was much better, and none found it worse. 94% rated the ePortfolio as a very or quite relevant form of assessment, with no respondent rating it as irrelevant.

Crucially, the survey included items measuring each of Bandura’s (1997) four self-efficacy sources directly. Table 1 presents the full distribution of responses across these items. Mastery experiences, vicarious learning, and verbal persuasion each showed agreement rates of 71–94%, while the affective/physiological dimension showed somewhat more variation, with the item measuring emotional resilience in challenging situations attracting the highest disagreement (35% disagreed or strongly disagreed).

88% of respondents agreed that the process should be compulsory, with 88% stating explicitly that they would probably not have engaged with it if it had been voluntary. This finding is directly relevant to questions about WIL curriculum design and is discussed below. All respondents (100%) agreed that groups of fewer than ten students are optimal for the Workshop One competency mapping session. Additionally, 82% reported that the process had influenced their goals and ambitions to a large or very large degree, representing an effect that extends beyond the module’s formal learning outcomes. The highest degree of disagreement in the dataset is associated with the statement regarding whether emotions in demanding situations (e.g., presentations, interviews) undermined confidence in one’s ability to manage the tasks.

The open-ended responses generated rich qualitative material that complements these patterns. The following translated responses illustrate the three main themes from the pilot as they appeared in the larger cohort.

On increased self-awareness and confidence:

I have learned more about myself. Found more words for what my skills actually are.

There are many things you just do without thinking of them as skills, and through talking with fellow students about my strengths, I got a useful outside perspective I hadn’t had before.

After this process I have learned a lot about myself. I have discovered strengths I thought I didn’t have before this process.

I have discovered strengths I thought I didn’t have before this process.

On the presenting skills:

A lot of awkwardness around presenting has disappeared

On ePortfolio as a career tool:

I plan to show it at interviews, add it to job applications and possibly LinkedIn. I’m also considering buying a domain so it comes up when people search for me.

Presenting myself in a completely different way and creating a competitive advantage over other candidates, I think that will be very helpful.

Using storytelling to illustrate yourself, I have clearly improved my ability to talk about myself, especially by connecting my history and journey to the person I have become.

On the overall experience:

The best subject I have had so far.

Very well implemented. Forces you to actually work. There should be more of this in other courses. I learned to connect my history and journey to the person I have become.

There was also a critical voice, one open-ended respondent described feeling uncomfortable with so much focus on themselves.