The use of portfolios stored and published in electronic formats is based on at least two assumptions. First, as performance-based assessments, they can extensively represent a preservice teacher’s or teacher’s competence, achievement, learning, and/or professional growth (Bartlett, 2002; Milman, 1999; Wieseman, 2004). Advances in electronic and digital technology permit classroom action to be documented and stored, thus capturing classroom practice and work of teacher for asynchronous viewing by others. Because they require less physical storage space than print media portfolios, electronic portfolios are increasingly being used to document, assess, and evaluate teacher quality, including eligibility for initial teacher licensure/credential or documentation of competence with respect to teaching and technology standards (Bartlett, 2002; Peters, 2000; Wieseman & Wenzlaff, 2004). A variety of models are emerging that are being labeled as electronic portfolios, not all of which portfolio experts would agree are portfolios; for example, an electronic work sample may not truly be an electronic portfolio (Barrett, personal communication, April 14, 2004; Barrett & Wilkerson, 2004). Regardless, reflection in some fashion is necessary in electronic portfolio creation. A second assumption, particularly in longitudinal electronic portfolio approaches, is that reflection will become more rich and complex as preservice teachers continue through a teacher preparation program (Levin & Camp, 2002; Mullen, Doty & Rice, 2002).