If there is no extant portfolio culture within a program that wants to adopt them across a curriculum, then there is often resistance from both faculty and students. This resistance is typically aimed at the technology rather than at how well the technology has been integrated into the curriculum. This presents a pretty good learning curve for all involved. How can we make the curve less steep?

It can be difficult to encourage richer, more reflective uses of portfolios than move beyond using the technology as an assignment submission tool. How can we encourage this?

It is critical to have compelling and imaginative examples of portfolios and portfolio projects to show instructors how they can be integrated into courses, to show advisors how they can play a role in the advising process, and to demonstrate the value of reflection to students who may otherwise equate reflection with busy-work. Can we generate these?

It is a challenge to get people to use the rich, flexible tool "as is" (meets 90% of their needs) rather than looking at it and finding reasons not to use it. When folks say "this is a really great tool, but we cannot use it because it lack 'x'", they are often simply resisting altering existing practices, curriculum, or processes. How can we get beyond this?

To build a vibrant, university-wide portfolio culture without a central demand from above, it is essential to engage with courses, administrative units, experiential learning and training programs, student groups, willing departments, schools, or colleges, and with individual faculty, staff, and students. The process is necessarily incremental. How can we create movement?