Hamp-Lyons and Condon discuss their process of developing a portfolio assessment at Colorado-Denver. They devote special attention to the ways that portfolios are assessed in the program –  how readers see one genre v. multiple genres;  what counts as a “broader reading” or a reading that invites judgments that are compatible with holistic scoring (as opposed to paper-by-paper judgments);  whether the portfolio makes the students’ process visible; and  whether portfolios create a community of assessment on a campus.
It is a project that they describe having several different iterations. The first iteration of the project was a piece designed to “help faculty reach consensus about what they mean by argumentation” (189). This is important, because two of the four projects included in the portfolio are arguments, so any assessment decision made about the portfolio is significantly informed by students’ argument papers. The second iteration of the project was designed to help faculty “define criteria” for assessing portfolios (189). Through this project, faculty started describing their practices. The third project, the project they represent here, shows that the process of implementing portfolios can have benefits that far outweigh “the assessment reason” — communication among faculty, faculty development as an “outgrowth” of teaching, democratization of faculty (regardless of rank), consensus and collaboration (189).