The Effect of Electronic Portfolios on Promoting Iranian ... · The Effect of Electronic Portfolios on Promoting Iranian EFL Learners' Writing Autonomy Fatemeh Baghernezhad Department

ELT Voices- International Journal for Teachers of English Volume (5), Issue (2), 68-88 (April 2015)

ISSN Number: 2230-9136

(http://www.eltvoices.in)

The Effect of Electronic Portfolios on Promoting Iranian EFL

Learners' Writing Autonomy

Fatemeh Baghernezhad

Department of English Language, Payame Noor University, Qeshm, Iran

Amir Reza Nemat Tabrizi

Department of English Language, Payame Noor University, Tehran, Iran

PO BOX 19395-3694

Corresponding: [email protected]

Article reference:

Baghernezhad , F., & Nemat Tabrizi, A. R. ( 2015) . The Effect of Electronic Portfolios on Promoting Iranian EFL Learners'

Writing Autonomy. ELT Voices, 5 (2), 68-88.

Abstract: The purpose of this study was to investigate the impact of electronic portfolios, as a nontraditional tool, on the

writing autonomy of Iranian EFL learners. A particular concern was to examine the potential effect of gender on electronic

portfolio by taking the learners writing autonomy into account. The participants were 90 male and female EFL learners to

whom the Writing Autonomy Questionnaire was administered to check their homogeneity prior to the study in terms of

writing autonomy. The participants were then randomly divided into 2 groups: experimental group (23 females and 22

males) and control group (22 females and 23 males). Whereas members of the control group developed traditional paper

portfolios, members of the experimental group used the Internet and online resources to develop and present the same essay

portfolios. The results showed that the electronic portfolio procedures improved the writing autonomy of the participants.

Also, gender had no impact on writing autonomy.

Index Terms: Electronic portfolios, hypertext link, learning autonomy

1. INTRODUCTION

1.1. Background and Purpose of Study

Electronic portfolio has been defined by Barrett (2005a) as a collection of authentic and divers evidence, drawn from

a large archive representing what a person or organization has learned over time, on which the person or organization has

reflected and designed for presentation to one or more audiences for a particular rhetorical purpose. An electronic portfolio

makes use of modern technologies to create and publish a document that a certain audience can access and read through

the computer. Also, through electronic technologies, students and teachers can collect and organize portfolio artifacts into

various types (e.g. audio, video, graphics, and text). Moreover, they can use hypertext links to organize the material and

include evidence of accomplishing appropriate outcomes, goals or standards.

Electronic portfolios have several advantages: 1) organizational flexibility, 2) display flexibility, 3) ability to connect

content to standards, and 4) use of communication tools (David, 2002). Besides, electronic portfolios require minimal

storage space and, therefore, students do not need massive storage systems. Also, electronic portfolios can be easily ac-

mailto:[email protected]

ELT Voices-Volume (5), Issue (2), (April 2015) 69

cessed by prospective employers online. In addition, electronic portfolios are easy to upgrade; their content may be updat-

ed from time to time to fit students' need, interests and objectives throughout the course. And finally, electronic portfolios

allow cross-referencing of students work through hyperlinks (Ali, 2005). According to Barrett (2005b), a portfolio has

three general components; content, process, and purpose. The content includes the evidence (the learner's artifact and re-

flections). An example might be writing samples, assignments, or activities undertaken over time and selected to showcase

students' writing proficiency development. The process includes the tools use, the sequence of activities, the rules set by

the institution, the reflections will be constructed by the learner, the evaluation criteria, etc. The purpose refers to the rea-

sons for which this tool is developed. A portfolio have various purposes; assessment, learning, professional development,

and marketing etc. Yet, based on the portfolio purpose, educators give a special emphasis to the following types:

a) Assessment (summative) portfolios

The focus is on the product or outcomes exemplified in documents aggregated over time to meet the expecta-

tions of a particular institution as in the case of graduation or certifications. Thus, assessment portfolios reflect "the

viewpoint of the evaluator" (Darling, 2001; p. 108), and as such, students perceive these portfolios as "something

done to them rather than something they want to maintain as a lifelong learning tool" (Barrett, 2005a). In other

words, the learners do not seem to have the strong sense of learning ownership.

b) Learning (formative) portfolios

The major purpose of this type is to foster learning and document growth over time. Unlike the previous type, the fo-

cus is on the process of learning. In other words, this tool "embodies the pains students experienced throughout the journey

of recording, reflecting, analyzing their documents" (Darling, 2001, p. 108). Therefore, the items included reflect learners'

perspectives, not outside standards and, as a result, students develop a strong sense of ownership as this tool turns to be "a

story told by the learner's own voice" (Barrett, 2005a).

1.2. Statement of the Problem

Though writing is a major skill that most EFL programs at universities give a high priority, many students encounter

serious difficulties when developing standard essays of different genres and rhetorical pattern. Students' incompetence may

be partly due to lack of practice and enthusiasm for writing. As a complex and recursive skill, writing requires steady

engagement in appropriate activities in order for the learners to fully experience the various aspects of this discourse. For

this reason, this study boost college students' writing competence through the incorporation of electronic portfolios into

face-to-face instruction. In addition, as a technology-based tool, the electronic portfolio has the potential for enhancing

students' learning autonomy.

1.3. Research Questions

Q1) Does the presentation of an electronic portfolio have any effect on Iranian EFL learners' writing autonomy?

Q2) Does the presentation of an electronic portfolio have any effect on Iranian male and female EFL learners' writing au-

tonomy?

1.4. Significance of the Study

As we move forward through this rapidly information age, the integration of information and communication tech-

70 Baghernezhad & Nemat Tabrizi (April 2015)

nologies into education has become "an imperative" (Warchauer, 2002, p.455). Therefore, electronic literacy (mastery of

basic technology skills)has become a prerequisite for college graduates in this era. Without necessary electronic compe-

tence, these graduates "will find themselves at the disadvantage educationally and occupationally" (Seaman, Wilkinson,

and Buboltz, 2001; p. 87). As such, there is an overwhelming demand for the incorporation of modern technologies into

education at all levels. This is most evident in higher education where many institutions around the globe are racing toward

the incorporation of online courses into the curricula of various academic fields (Desai & Loso, 2003). Thus many institu-

tions have begun "to enrich their once interpersonal lecture classes using e-mail, discussion groups, and personal web pag-

es" (St-pierre, 2001, p. 96). In fact, these technologies " have opened new avenues for assisting both teachers and learners

"(Dixon & Johnson, 2001, p. 40). Modern technologies offer easy access to a plethora of data through various means, spe-

cially the World Wide Web. Also, information and communication technologies have facilitated interaction between teach-

ers and learners through both synchronous and asynchronous channels. Consequently, this has helped learning and instruc-

tion to surpass the limitation of time and space.

Clearly, the impact of information and communication technologies on education "is certainly felt at all levels, from

preschool to the college arena" (Seeman et al., 2001, p. 81). Consequently, technology has become "an important factor of

change in education"(Alvarez & Rico, 2006, p. 13), and as Cambiano et al. (2001) aptly put it, education today "is search-

ing for a new meaning for the teaching and learning process" (p. 21). This vivid influence encompasses both teachers and

learners who have to "modify their epistemologies to construct knowledge with and from more robust modes of represen-

tation"(Dickenson, 2001, p. 39). Thus, the influence of technology in education is manifested in the shift toward adopting

new forms of course delivery which conceptualize learners as knowledge creators learners as knowledge creators, rather

than as passive recipients. Accordingly, the roles of both the teacher and the learner have drastically changed and the au-

thoritarian relationship has given way to a more democratic, humanistic, and constructivist orientation where the two sides

act as partners.

In fact, electronic portfolios provide both teachers and parents with an accessible archive of authentic work which

manifests students' "deep learning" and "ownership" of the task. Moreover, electronic portfolios can offer a structure for

students "to reflect systematically over time on the learning process and to develop the aptitude, skills, and habits that

come from reflection"(Zubizarreta, 2004, p. 15). Also, electronic portfolios can help promote writing competence. In order

to successfully complete their portfolios, learners experience various self-engaging activities through which they become

active participants in the writing process; students are held accountable for topic selection, development, reflection, organ-

ization, as well as publishing.

2. REVIEW OF THE RELATED LITERATURE

A review of relevant literature reveals that most empirical studies which investigated the incorporation of electronic

portfolios in various educational domains have focused mainly on using this tool for assessment. To cite a few, Cambiano,

Fernandez, and Martinez (2001) administered a survey on 58 college students in order to examine how they differ in 1) the

process of developing and conducting traditional and electronic portfolios, 2) methodology, and 3) evaluation.

Also, Wilson, Write, and Stallworth(2003) found that students prefer using electronic portfolios to self evaluate their con-

ception knowledge and show their ability to connect learning. As a result of assessment through electronic portfolios,

students became more engaged and their personal theories, beliefs, and practices came together in a cohesive bond.

Brown (2004) used online surveys to identify graduate students' responses to the electronic portfolios assessment. His study

showed that authentic assessment through electronic portfolios was useful for facilitating reflective thinking that resulted in

self-regulated learning. Therefore, he concluded that electronic portfolio assessment is not only a valid measure of skills

and concept attainment, but is also a reliable tool for predicting future career performance.


Wickersham and Chambers (2006) conducted a study on 26 graduate students in order to identify the effective strate-

gies that can be utilized to design and develop electronic portfolios for the assessment of learning. After three semester of

implementation, Study results showed students' preference to electronic portfolios as opposed to traditional assessment tests.

Electronic portfolios allowed a broader expression of learning, immediate feedback on progress, and more authentic as-

sessment.

Chang (2002) administered an evaluation questionnaire to 35 students in a pre-service teacher education program in

order to identify the impact of a web-based portfolio on learning processes and outcomes. Study results revealed that the

web-based portfolio system helped students obtain more feedback from their peers than from their teachers.

Also, Dhonau, and McAlpine (2005) reported the results of a piloted foreign language program that required students to

produce a CD-Rom portfolio as part of a second language Methods course. It led to fostering interaction among the faculty

and the students and helped raise standards for better institutional accreditation.

Chang, Wu, and Ku (2005) examined the perceptions of 37 eighth grade Taiwanese students towards introducing electronic

portfolios in teaching English as a foreign language. Study results indicated overwhelmingly positive reactions among the

participants who hailed the use of this tool in Taiwanese schools.

Similarly, Kocoglu (2008) conducted a descriptive study which investigated the perceptions of Turkish EFL students

teachers' perceptions toward using electronic portfolios as a learning tool. The results of student teachers' interviews indi-

cated that electronic portfolios helped the participants collect study material, stay up-to-date with innovations in the digital

world, find relevant careers, and support their professional development through working collaboratively.

On other hand, Rossi, Magnoler, and Giannandrea (2008) reported that electronic portfolios are effective for enhancing

reflection among both teachers and students. The researchers used surveys and quantitative data to examine 200 electronic

portfolios over a three semester period. Study findings indicated that electronic portfolios are useful for promoting adult

in-service training.

Finally, Gary (2009) conducted a qualitative study which explored the realistic problems and challenges facing vari-

ous stakeholders during the implementation of an electronic portfolio system in a language center in Hong Kong Polytech-

nic University. The study offered various suggestions in response to stakeholders' concerns regarding the use of electronic

portfolio for : 1) supporting lifelong learning, 2( archiving, 3) showcasing selected artifacts, and 4) recording professional

development.

3. METHODOLOGY

3.1. Sample/ Participants

This study was conducted on 90 students majoring in English as a foreign language at the language institute in Iran.

The participants were random divided into two groups: experimental group (23 females and 22 males) and control group

(22 females and 23 males).

3.2. Instruments

In this research one instrument was used. The learner autonomy scale developed by Aliweh (2011), was used to ex-

plore the effect of electronic portfolios on the students' writing autonomy. The current 5 point Liker scale has two alternate

forms; one form was used as a pre-measure (form A) and the other as a post-measure (form B). The autonomy scale com-

prised the following dimensions; a) use of self directed strategies (items 1-12 in both forms), b) perception of the learning

process (item 13-21 in both forms), and c) seeking a variety of learning opportunities (items 22-30 in both forms).

3.3. Procedure

First, in order to check the participants' homogeneity in terms of writing autonomy ,form A of the Writing Autonomy

questionnaire was administered to 120 subjects, male (n = 60) and female (n = 60). After that 90 participants (45 males and


45 females) who their writing autonomy was homogeneous were selected among them. In other words they enjoyed the

same level of writing autonomy prior to the launching of the study. Then, the 90 participants were randomly divided into

two groups : experimental group ( 23 females and 22 males) and control group ( 22 female and 23 males).

The data collection process was based upon a twelve session ( 90 minutes for each session). Because the participants

were not familiar with this type of experiment, the teacher explained the design, goal, and procedure of the electronic port-

folio in the experimental group, answered their questions, and tried to omit the possible problems they would encounter.

Then, the participants of the two groups were required to hand in a portfolio which contained at least five final drafts of

different essays handled throughout the term. And the same material, techniques, activities, and strategies were used for the

two groups by the instructor who implemented the process approach throughout this course.

In the control group students gathered artifacts (in this case, relevant material to essay writing) that show their suc-

cessful endeavors and growth opportunities in their day-to-day learning. They identified the artifacts which act as evidence

in the meeting particular objectives and standards. Students evaluated their own progress over time. They reviewed the

successes as well as the gaps in the portfolio development process. They compared their reflection to particular standards

and performance indicators in order to fulfill future learning objectives. At the end, they shared their portfolios with the

public; peers, friends, or parents.

In contrast, the members of the experimental group were engaged in gathering ideas and materials relevant to the topic

through Internet engine searches and information quests. They were required to extensively read whole papers, identify

relevant information, and make use of certain pieces when writing topics. The main focus was on the meaning; that is, put-

ting ideas on paper. Therefore, "mechanics and surface structure such as spelling, punctuation, and sentence structure

should not be a concern. This stage is centered on recording ideas" (Carter, 2007, p.69). Thus, the participants made use of

the information gathered from info-quests to write their first drafts which were posted on the Internet Discussion Group site.

Each participant had to offer feedback to another classmate once a week. In order to avoid flattery, the participants used

pseudonyms when joining the Discussion Group. In reality, only the investigator kept a list of students' real names as well

as their pseudonyms, for course evaluation considerations. At the beginning of the course, most students' feedback focused

on surface features and mechanics, e.g., grammatical errors, spelling, and punctuation, even though the participants were

frequently reminded that handling such aspects should be postponed to the editing stage. After, the participants were re-

quired to go through the content of their writing, looking for improvement. Based on the feedback they received from the

instructor and their peers, they dad to clarify, add, delete, or even reformulate the whole draft in order to fit the intended

purpose, tone, and audience. At the end, students polished their final drafts by examining the mechanics and the surface

features ; e.g., sentence structure, spelling, punctuation, writing format, etc. the participants could make use of the spelling

and grammar checkers of the Word processing program when editing their essays. As a sort of recognition of their writing

accomplishments, the participants had to share their topics with their peers through publishing their essays on the group's

web page. To do this, the participants had to save their essays into files and then copy and paste these files into a folder

entitled My Portfolio. This folder contained five essays which students developed, selected, reflected on, and presented as

evidence of their progress throughout this course. A typical student portfolio had to start with a title page that had the stu-

dent's name, class, academic year, and topic. Next was the content page which contained the students' topics and reflection

notes.

At the end of the semester, members of the two groups filled the second questionnaire (form B). Finally, students' re-

sponses on the two questionnaire were statistically analyzed by administering the MANOVA in order to examine the impact

of students' electronic portfolios on their writing autonomy. And a multivariate ANOVA (MANOVA) was run to probe the

effect of the presentation of an electronic portfolio on the Iranian male and female EFL learners' writing autonomy.

4. RESULTS AND DISCUSSION


Four assumptions of interval data, independence of subjects, normality and homogeneity of variances should be met

before one decides to run parametric techniques to analyze his or her data (Field, 2009). The present data are measured on

an interval scale. The subjects are independent, i.e. the performance of any of the subjects is not affected by others. The

assumption of normality is also met. As displayed in Table 1 (see appendix) the ratios of skewness and kurtosis over their

respective standard errors are within the ranges of +/- 1.96.

Table 4.1. Descriptive Statistics; Form “A” Writing Autonomy Questionnaire

N Mini

mum

Maxi

mum

Mea

n

Std. De-

viation

Form A 120 83 116 100.

48

5.747

Form A of the Writing Autonomy questionnaire was administered to 120 subjects with a mean of 100.48 and standard

deviation of 5.74 (Table 4.1.). Based on the mean plus and minus one SD 90subjects were selected to participate in the

main study. A multivariate ANOVA (MANOVA) was run to prove that the experimental and control groups were homoge-

neous in terms of their writing autonomy prior to the presentation of an electronic portfolio to the former group.

Before reporting the main results it should be noted that the assumption of homogeneity of variances – as tested

through the Levene’s F-values – and the assumption of homogeneity of covariance – as tested through the Box’s test – were

met.

Table 4.2. Homogeneity of Variances; Pretests of Writing Autonomy

F df1 df2 Sig.

PreU

SDS

3.38

7

1 88 .069

PrePL

P

3.69

1

1 88 .058

PreS

VLO

.280 1 88 .598

As displayed in Table 4.2. the probabilities associated with the Levene’s F-values were all higher than .05. Thus the

assumption of homogeneity of variances was met.

Table 4.3. Box’s Test of Equality of Covariance Matrices; Pretests of Writing Autonomy

Box's M 9.163

F 1.471

df1 6

df2 56107.472

Sig. .184

Besides enjoying homogenous variances the groups should enjoy homogenous covariance matrices. The Box’s

M-value of 9.13was not significant (P = .184> .05). Thus the assumption of homogeneity of covariance matrices was also

met.


Table 4.4. Multivariate Tests Writing Autonomy by Groups

Effect Value F Hypothesis

df

Error

df

Sig. Partial

Eta

Squared

Intercept

Pillai's

Trace

.999 25733.928 3 86 .000 .999

Wilks'

Lambda

.001 25733.928 3 86 .000 .999

Hotelling's

Trace

897.695 25733.928 3 86 .000 .999

Roy's

Largest

Root

897.695 25733.928 3 86 .000 .999

Group

Pillai's

Trace

.062 1.902 3 86 .135 .062

Wilks'

Lambda

.938 1.902 3 86 .135 .062

Hotelling's

Trace

.066 1.902 3 86 .135 .062

Roy's

Largest

Root

.066 1.902 3 86 .135 .062

It should be noted that the SPSS produces four F-values. If the assumptions of normality, homogeneity of variances

and covariance are met – as is the case in this study, the first F-value, i.e. Pillai’s Trace should be reported. Based on the

results displayed in Table 4.4. it can be concluded that there was not any significant difference between the experimental

and control groups’ means on the pretest of writing autonomy (F (3, 86) = 1.90, P > .05, Partial η2 = .06 it represents a

moderate effect size). The results of Table 4.4. indicated that there was not any significant difference between the experi-

mental and control groups’ means on the total pretest of writing autonomy.

Table 4.5. Tests of Between-Subjects Effects; Components of the Pretest of Writing Autonomy

Source Dependent

Variable

Type III Sum

of Squares

df Mean

Square

F Sig. Partial Eta

Squared

Group

PreUSDS 17.778 1 17.778 3.796 .055 .041

PrePLP 17.778 1 17.778 2.390 .126 .026

PreSVLO 6.400 1 6.400 .974 .326 .011

Error

PreUSDS 412.178 88 4.684

PrePLP 654.711 88 7.440

PreSVLO 578.222 88 6.571

Total

PreUSDS 100964.000 90

PrePLP 95670.000 90

PreSVLO 115646.000 90

The results of Table 4.5. compare the two groups on the three components of writing autonomy, i.e. use of

self-directed strategies, perception of learning process and seek a variety of learning opportunities.


Table 4.6. Descriptive Statistics; Components of the Pretest of Writing Autonomy

Dependent Vari-

able

Group Mea

n

Std.

Error

95% Confidence Interval

Lower

Bound

Upper

Bound

PreUSDS

Experi-

mental

32.9

78

.323 32.337 33.619

Control 33.8

67

.323 33.226 34.508

PrePLP

Experi-

mental

32.9

33

.407 32.125 33.741

Control 32.0

44

.407 31.236 32.852

PreSVLO

Experi-

mental

36.0

22

.382 35.263 36.782

Control 35.4

89

.382 34.730 36.248

A: There was not any significant difference between the experimental and control groups’ means on the pretest of use

of self-directed strategies (F (1, 88) = 3.79, P > .05, Partial η2 = .041 it represents a weak to moderate effect size) (Table

4.6.). The means for the experimental and control groups on the pretest of use of self-directed strategies were 32.97 and

33.86 respectively. B: There was not any significant difference between the experimental and control groups’ means on the pretest of

perception of learning process (F (1, 88) = 2.39, P > .05, Partial η2 = .026 it represents a weak effect size) (Table 4.6.). The

means for the experimental and control groups on the pretest of perception of learning process were 32.93 and 32.04 re-

spectively (Table 4.6.).

C: There was not any significant difference between the experimental and control groups’ means on the pretest of

seeking a variety of learning opportunities (F (1, 88) = .97, P > .05, Partial η2 = .011 it represents a weak effect size) (Table

4.6.). The means for the experimental and control groups on the pretest of seeking a variety of learning opportunities were

36.02 and 35.48 respectively (Table 4.6.).

Analysis of the first research question

RQ1: Does the presentation of an electronic portfolio have any effect on Iranian EFL learners' writing autonomy?

A multivariate ANOVA (MANOVA) was run to probe the effect of the presentation of an electronic portfolio on the

Iranian EFL learners' writing autonomy as measured through the posttest. Before reporting the main results it should be

noted that the assumption of homogeneity of variances – as tested through the Levene’s F-values – and the assumption of

homogeneity of covariance – as tested through the Box’s test – were met.

Table 4.7. Homogeneity of Variances; Posttests of Writing Autonomy


F df1 df2 Sig.

Pos-

teUS

DS

3.20

1

1 88 .077

PostP

LP

.038 1 88 .846

PostS

VLO

.991 1 88 .322

As displayed in Table 4.7., the probabilities associated with the Levene’s F-values were all higher than .05. Thus the


Table 4.8. Box’s Test of Equality of Covariance Matrices; Posttests of Writing Autonomy

Box's M 7.354

F 1.180

df1 6

df2 56107.472

Sig. .313


M-value of 7.35 was not significant (P = .313> .05). Thus the assumption of homogeneity of covariance matrices was also

met.

Table 4.9. Multivariate Tests; Posttest of Writing Autonomy by Groups


df

Error

df

Sig. Partial Eta

Squared

Intercept

Pillai's Trace .996 6535.554 3 86 .000 .996

Wilks'

Lambda

.004 6535.554 3 86 .000 .996

Hotelling's

Trace

227.984 6535.554 3 86 .000 .996

Roy's Largest

Root

227.984 6535.554 3 86 .000 .996

Group

Pillai's Trace .325 13.779 3 86 .000 .325

Wilks'

Lambda

.675 13.779 3 86 .000 .325

Hotelling's

Trace

.481 13.779 3 86 .000 .325

Roy's Largest

Root

.481 13.779 3 86 .000 .325

Based on the results displayed in Table 4.9. it can be concluded that there was a significant difference between the

experimental and control groups’ means on the posttest of writing autonomy (F (3, 86) = 13.77, P < .05, Partial η2 = .32 it

represents a large effect size). Thus it can be concluded that the null-hypothesis as the presentation of an electronic portfo-

lio did not have any effect on Iranian EFL learners' writing autonomy was rejected.

The results of Table 4.9. indicated that there was a significant difference between the experimental and control groups’


means on the total posttest of writing autonomy.

Table 4.10. Tests of Between-Subjects Effects; Components of the Posttest of Writing Autonomy

Source Dependent

Variable

Type III Sum

of Squares

df Mean

Square

F Sig. Partial Eta

Squared

Group

PostUSDS 303.111 1 303.111 19.007 .000 .178

PostPLP 195.888 1 195.888 17.448 .000 .165

PostSVLO 39.410 1 39.410 2.481 .119 .027

Error

PostUSDS 1403.364 88 15.947

PostPLP 987.956 88 11.227

PostSVLO 1397.592 88 15.882

Total

PostUSDS 121329.306 90

PostPLP 84229.938 90

PostSVLO 83534.025 90


and covariance are met – as is the case in this study, the first F-value, i.e. Pillai’s Trace should be reported. The results of

Table 4.10. compare the two groups on the three components of writing autonomy, i.e. use of self-directed strategies, per-

ception of learning process and seek a variety of learning opportunities.

Table 4.11. Descriptive Statistics; Components of the Posttests of Writing Autonomy

Dependent Vari-

able

Group Mea

n

Std.

Error


Lower

Bound

Upper

Bound

PostUSDS

Experi-

mental

38.2

93

.595 37.110 39.476

Control 34.6

22

.595 33.439 35.805

PostPLP

Experi-

mental

31.8

52

.499 30.859 32.844

Control 28.9

01

.499 27.909 29.894

PostSVLO

Experi-

mental

29.5

41

.594 28.360 30.721

Control 30.8

64

.594 29.684 32.045

A: There was a significant difference between the experimental and control groups’ means on the posttest of use of

self-directed strategies (F (1, 88) = 19.007, P < .05, Partial η2 = .178 it represents a large effect size) (Table 4.11.). The

means for the experimental and control groups on the posttest of use of self-directed strategies were 38.29 and 34.62 re-

spectively (Table 4.11.).

B: There was a significant difference between the experimental and control groups’ means on the posttest of percep-

tion of learning process (F (1, 88) = 17.44, P < .05, Partial η2 = .16 it represents a large effect size) (Table 4.11.). The means

for the experimental and control groups on the posttest of perception of learning process were 31.85 and 28.90 respectively C: There was not any significant difference between the experimental and control groups’ means on the posttest of


seeking a variety of learning opportunities (F (1, 88) = 2.48, P > .05, Partial η2 = .02 it represents a weak effect size) (Table

4.11.). The means for the experimental and control groups on the posttest of seeking a variety of learning opportunities

were 29.54 and 30.86 respectively.

Table 4.12. Cronbach Alpha Reliability; Pretests and Posttests of Writing Autonomy

Cronbach's

Alpha

N of

Items

PreUSDS .062 12

PrePLP .048 9

PreSVLO .360 29

Total Pretest .310 30

PostUSDS .853 12

PostPLP -.350 9

PostSVLO .597 29

Total Post-

test

.644 30

The Cronbach alpha reliability indices for the pretests and posttests of writing autonomy are displayed in Table 4.12.

above.

Table 4.13. Total Variance Explained

Com-

ponent

Initial Eigenvalues Extraction Sums of Squared

Loadings

Rotation Sums of Squared Load-

ings

T

ot

al

% of

Var-

ianc

e

Cumula-

tive %

T

ot

al

% of

Var-

ianc

e

Cumula-

tive %

T

ot

al

% of

Var-

ianc

e

Cumula-

tive %

1

1.

67

7

27.9

45

27.945 1.

67

7

27.9

45

27.945 1.

45

9

24.3

13

24.313

2

1.

23

3

20.5

43

48.487 1.

23

3

20.5

43

48.487 1.

34

2

22.3

69

46.682

3

1.

12

3

18.7

18

67.205 1.

12

3

18.7

18

67.205 1.

23

1

20.5

23

67.205

4 .8

56

14.2

73

81.478

5 .6

37

10.6

14

92.092

6 .4

75

7.90

8

100.000

A factor analysis through varimax rotation was carried out to the underlying construct of the six components of the


pretests and posttests of writing autonomy. The SPSS extracted three factors which accounted for 67.20 percent of the total

variance.

Table 4.14. Rotated Factor Matrix

Component

1 2 3

PrePLP .832

PreUS

DS

.666

Post-

PLP

.906

Pos-

tUSDS

.503 .639

PreSVL

O

.734

PostSV

LO

.733

As displayed in Table 4.14., the pretests and posttests of perception of learning process (PLP) and use of self-directed

strategies (USDS) load on the first and second factor. It seems that the presentation of the electronic portfolio has had a

significant effect on the nature of these tests since they formed the same construct on the pretest while loaded on a differ-

ent factor after the treatment.The construct of the pretest and posttest of seeking a variety of learning opportunities (SVLO)

are not affected by the treatment.

Analysis of the second research question

RQ2: Does the presentation of an electronic portfolio have any effect on Iranian male and female EFL learners' writ-

ing autonomy?

A multivariate ANOVA (MANOVA) was run to probe the effect of the presentation of an electronic portfolio on the

Iranian male and female EFL learners' writing autonomy. Before reporting the main results it should be noted that the as-

sumption of homogeneity of variances – as tested through the Levene’s F-values – and the assumption of homogeneity of

covariance – as tested through the Box’s test – were met.

Table 4.15. Homogeneity of Variances; Posttests of Writing Autonomy

F df1 df2 Sig.

Pos-

teUS

DS

2.47

3

1 88 .119

PostP

LP

2.32

2

1 88 .131

PostS

VLO

.474 1 88 .493

As displayed in Table 4.15., the probabilities associated with the Levene’s F-values were all higher than .05. Thus the



Table4.16. Box’s Test of Equality of Covariance Matrices; Posttests of Writing Autonomy

Box's M 3.338

F .536

df1 6

df2 56107.472

Sig. .782


M-value of 3.33 was not significant (P = .782 > .05). Thus the assumption of homogeneity of covariance matrices was also

met.

Table 4.17. Multivariate Tests; Posttest of Writing Autonomy by Gender


df

Error

df

Sig. Partial

Eta

Squared

Intercept

Pillai's

Trace

.995 5492.261 3 86 .000 .995

Wilks'

Lambda

.005 5492.261 3 86 .000 .995

Hotelling's

Trace

191.591 5492.261 3 86 .000 .995

Roy's

Largest

Root

191.591 5492.261 3 86 .000 .995

Gender

Pillai's

Trace

.007 .212 3 86 .888 .007

Wilks'

Lambda

.993 .212 3 86 .888 .007

Hotelling's

Trace

.007 .212 3 86 .888 .007

Roy's

Largest

Root

.007 .212 3 86 .888 .007


and covariance are met – as is the case in this study, the first F-value, i.e. Pillai’s Trace should be reported. Based on the

results displayed in Table 4.17, it can be concluded that there was not any significant difference between the male and fe-

male subjects’ means on the posttest of writing autonomy (F (3, 86) = .212, P > .05, Partial η2 = .007 it represents a weak

effect size). Thus it can be concluded that the null-hypothesis as the presentation of an electronic portfolio did not have any

effect on the performance of male and female Iranian EFL learners' writing autonomy was supported.


Table 4.18. Tests of Between-Subjects Effects; Components of the Posttest of Writing Autonomy by Gender

Source Dependent

Variable

Type III Sum

of Squares

df Mean

Square

F Sig. Partial Eta

Squared

Gender

PostUSDS 4.082 1 4.082 .211 .647 .002

PostPLP 6.341 1 6.341 .474 .493 .005

PostSVLO .562 1 .562 .034 .853 .000

Error

PostUSDS 1702.394 88 19.345

PostPLP 1177.503 88 13.381

PostSVLO 1436.440 88 16.323

Total

PostUSDS 121329.306 90

PostPLP 84229.938 90

PostSVLO 83534.025 90

As displayed in Table 4.18., gender did not have any significant effect on the performance of the subjects on;

A: Self-directed strategies (F (3, 86) = .211, P > .05, Partial η2 = .002 it represents a weak effect size).

B: Perception of learning strategies (F (3, 86) = .474, P > .05, Partial η2 = .005 it represents a weak effect size).

C: Seeking a variety of learning opportunities (F (3, 86) = .034, P > .05, Partial η2 = .000 it represents a weak effect

size).

Table 4.19. Descriptive Statistics; Components of the Posttests of Writing Autonomy by Gender

Dependent Vari-

able

Group Mea

n

Std.

Error


Lower

Bound

Upper

Bound

PostUSDS

Female 36.6

70

.656 35.367 37.973

Male 36.2

44

.656 34.941 37.547

PostPLP

Female 30.6

42

.545 29.558 31.726

Male 30.1

11

.545 29.027 31.195

PostSVLO

Female 30.1

23

.602 28.927 31.320

Male 30.2

81

.602 29.085 31.478

As reported above, data analysis revealed that electronic portfolios had effect on students' writing autonomy. This

result is not consistent with a myriad of previous research findings which indicated that there is no significant difference in

the learning outcomes of students enrolled in web-based instruction and those attending traditional face-to-face classes

(Carey, 2001; Fallah & Ubell, 2000; Johnson et al., 2000). Along the same line, Carey (2001) reports that "to this date, most

research indicates that there is little difference in the performance of students taking online courses and students taking

face-to-face classes." Also, Carnevale (2001) maintains that "the delivery mode we know for a fact does not impact the

learning. It is the design of the instruction that impacts the learning, and also what the students bring to the instructional


situation." Thus, Keefe (2003) concludes that the no significant difference effect is arguably the most enduring phenome-

non in the literature. It supports using technology in education, not because it increases teaching effectiveness…but because

it is cheaper and more convenient (p.39). As Mccarthy (2000) points out, "training in itself does not certainly entail auton-

omy development among learning; providing the learner with opportunities to practice autonomy both inside and outside

classroom is necessary for the effectiveness of autonomy training programs (p.2). This system encourages teacher reliance

and offers few, if any, opportunity for inquiry and reflection. Therefore, "it is not realistic to expect to achieve autonomous

language learning in more teacher dominant contexts…; the majority of students lack necessary critical thinking skills to

cope with the requirements of academic life such as the skills to plan, conduct, and evaluate research" (Sert, 2006, p.185).

Again, "given this situation, it is not surprising that students have failed to overtly demonstrate a great deal of autonomy"

(Holden & Usuki, 1999, pp.191-192).

5. CONCLUSION

Introducing learners to this viable tool enables them to experience hands-on writing activities, especially in the web

environment which teems with multimodal online resources that students can use to gather writing input through hyperlinks,

cross references, group discussions, and feedback from both peers and teachers. Moreover, the inclusion of portfolios in

writing classes has the potential of offering learners authentic opportunities to practice self assessment and a sharing of

authority between teacher and student; students can select the work on which they will be evaluated, reflect on their work,

seek advice from teachers and peers, and take control of revision. Thus, "evaluation becomes a positive force to encourage

growth, maturity, and independence, rather than a means of pointing out differences. A power shift can occur because

teacher and students are united in a common effort to improve students' writing instead of adversaries in an unequal contest

in which one player ( the teacher) controls the outcome from the beginning" (Richardson, 2000, p.120).

The introduction of autonomy in language learning requires drastic changes in syllabuses, teacher training programs,

as well as learners' attitude. To this end, language programs should shift the emphasis from the "content" to the "process" of

learning, (Nunes, 2006). In other words, rather than focusing on knowledge retention through memorization and rote learn-

ing, there should be a shift toward learning strategies that foster self-directed activities and reflective skills; e.g. group ac-

tivities, self assessment assignments, peer assessment, etc. (Jacobs & Farrell, 2001). Closely related to this, the activities

should require the students to take responsibility for planning, monitoring, and evaluating their own learning. For example,

language programs "should introduce task-based learning activities; e.g., group presentations, language games, online dis-

cussion groups, e-mail projects…etc. In this way, "teachers can transfer the locus of control to learners and help them be-

come autonomous" (Chiu, 2008). To conclude, the current study revealed that students' development of online portfolios

did yield significant effects on students' learning autonomy. However, these results should be approached with caution due

to the relatively short duration of the study as well as to the interference of several extraneous variables that are the least

controllable in online research.

References

[1] Ali, S. (2005). An introduction to electronic portfolios in the language classroom. The Internet TESL Journal. Re-

trieved December 30, 2014 from http://iteslj.org/Techniques/Ali-portfolios.html.

[2] Alvarez, M., & Rice, J. (2006). Web-based tests in second /foreign language self Assessment.. Retrieved December 21,

2014, from http://www.eric.ed.gov/ERICDOCS/data/ericdocs2sQl/content_storage_01.

[3] Barrett, H. (2005a). Conflicting paradigms in electronic portfolio development. Retrieved January 3, 2014 from

http://electronicportfolios.org/portfolios/LEAJournal-Barrett-Carney.pdf.

[4] Barrett, H. (2005b). White paper: Researching electronic portfolios and learner engagement. Retrieved January 3,

2014 fromhttp://electronicportfolios.org/portfolios/LEAJournal-Barrett- Carney.pdf.

[5] Brown, C. (2004). Design, development, and evaluation of electronic portfolios for advanced degree programs in

technology and school media. Annual Proceedings, 1, (pp.150-157).Chicago.

[6] Cambiano, R., Fernandez, A., & Martinez, A. (2001). Online portfolios vs. traditional portfolios. In D. Bauder, R.

Mullick, & R. Sarner. (Eds.), Concepts and procedures (pp. 21-26). London: Longman.

[7] Carey, J. (2001). Effective students outcomes: a comparison of online and face-to face delivery modes. Retrieved De-

cember 30, 2014 from http://cuda.teleeducation.nb.ca/ no significant difference.

[8] Carlisle, R. (2002). A four year study comparing English classes online, via television, and face-to-face. Retrieved

December 30, 2014 from http://cuda.teleeducation.nb.ca/ no significant difference.

[9] Carter, R. (2007). Teachers as co-authors: internalizing the writing process. Journal of Educational Enquiry, 7(2),

66-82.

[10] Chang, (2002). Assessing and analyzing the effects of WBLP on learning process and achievement: Using elec-

tronic portfolio for authentic assessment on university students’ learning. Retrieved September 20, 2014 from

http://www.eric.ed.govERICDocsdatericdocs2sqlcontent.

[11] Chang, Y., Wu, C., & Ku, H. (2005). The introduction of electronic portfolios to teach and assess English as a foreign

language in Taiwan. Linking Research and Practice to Improve Learning, 49, 30-35

[12] Darling, L. (2001). Portfolios as practice: The narratives of emerging teachers. Teaching and Teacher Education, 17,

107-121.

[13] Desai, R., & Loso, T. (2003). Enhancing accessibility with web-based material and courses. Proceedings of the

Eights Annual Mid-South Conference: Technology-the Challenge Continues, 31-35. Retrieved December 21 , 2014,from

http://www.eric.ed.gov/ERICDOCS/data/ericdocs2sQl/content_storage_01.

[14] Dhonau, S., & McAlpine, D. (2005). An electronic portfolio for the ACTFL/NCATE teacher program in the second

language methods course. Foreign Language Annals, 38, 69-76.

[15] Fallah, M., & Ubell, R. (2000). Blind scores in a graduate test: Conventional compared with web-based outcomes.

ALN Magazine, 11(9), 12-22.

[16] Felix. U. (2001). Beyond Babel: Language learning online. Melbourne: Language Australia Ltd.

[17] Field, A. (2009). Discovering statistics using SPSS (3rd

ed.). London: SAGE.

[18] Frydenberg, J. (2007). Persistence in university continuing education online classes. International Review of Re-

search in Open Distance Learning, 8 (3), 58-67.

[19] Gary, C. (2009). Implementation challenges of the English language e-portfolio system from various stakeholder

perspective. Journal of Educational Technology Systems, 37(1), 97-118.

[20] Green, R., & Gentermann, K. (2001). Technology in the curriculum: An assessment of the impact of online courses.

Retrieved September 13, 2014 from http://assessment.gmu.edu/reports/Eng302.

[21] Hamidi, H., & Montazeri, M. (2014). Dictionary of second language acquisition. Retrieved May 10, 2015, from

http://www.iranelt.com/index.php/introduction-to-sla.

http://iteslj.org/Techniques/Ali-portfolios.html

http://www.eric.ed.govericdocsdatericdocs2sqlcontent/

http://www.eric.ed.gov/ERICDOCS/data/ericdocs2sQl/content_storage_01

http://assessment.gmu.edu/reports/Eng302


[22] Holden, B., & Usuki, M. (1999). Learner autonomy in language learning: A preliminary investigation. Bulletin of

Hokuriku University, 23, 191-203.

[23] Johnson, S., Aragon, S., Shaik, N., & Palma-Rivas, N. (2000). Comparative analysis of learner satisfaction and

learning outcomes in online and face-to-face learning Environments. Journal of Interactive Learning Research, 11(1),

29-49.

[24] Kocoglu, Z. (2008). Turkish EFL student teachers’ perceptions on the role of electronic portfolios in their profes-

sional development. The Turkish Online Journal of Educational Technology, 7(3), 13-27.

[25] Lockee, B. (2001). What matters in judging distance teaching? Retrieved December 23, 2012 from

http://chronicle.com/free/2001/02/200102210/uhtm

[26] Phipps, R., & Merisotis, J. (1999). What is the difference? A review of contemporary research on the effectiveness of

distance learning in higher education. Retrieved December 23, 2014 from http://www.ihep.org/pubs/pdf/diference/pdf

[27] Press, L. (2005). A modular web-based introductory course. Retrieved September10, 2014 from http: bpas-

tudio-csudh.edu/fac/lpree/

[28] Richardson, S. (2000). Students’ conditioned response to teacher response – portfolio components, take note. As-

sessing Writing, 7, 117-141.

[29] Rossi, P., Magnoler, p., & Giannandrea, L. (2008). From an e-portfolio model to eportfolio practices: Some guide-

lines. Campus Wide Information Systems, 25 (4), 219-32.

[30] Sert, N. (2006). EFL students teachers’ learning autonomy. Asian EFL Journal, 8 (2), 54-67.

[31] Thanasoulas, D. (2000). What is learner autonomy and how can it be fostered? The Internet TESL Journal, 6 (2).

Retrieved December 23, 2012, from http://iteslj.org/articles/Thanasoulas.html.

[32] Usuki, M. (2001). The learning process model and autonomy. Retrieved December 23, 2014 from

http://www.eric.ed.gov/ERICDOCS/data/ericdocsSQL/content_storage_01.

[33] Usuki, M. (2002). Learner autonomy: Learning from the students’ voice. Retrieved December 23, 2014 from

http://www.eric.ed.gov/ERICDOCS/data/ericdocsSQL/content_storage_01.

[34] Warschauer, M. (2002). A developmental perspective on technology in language education. TESOL Quarterly, 36 (3),

453-475.

[35] Wickersham, L., & Chambers, S. (2006). Designing e-portfolios for learning outcomes assessment: Course to pro-

gram. 29th

Annual Proceedings, Dallas, 1,367-373.

[36] Zubizarreta, J. (2004). The learning portfolio. Bolton, MA: Anker Publishing

http://chronicle.com/free/2001/02/200102210/uhtm

http://www.ihep.org/pubs/pdf/diference/pdf

http://iteslj.org/articles/Thanasoulas.html

http://www.eric.ed.gov/ERICDOCS/data/ericdocsSQL/content_storage_01

http://www.eric.ed.gov/ERICDOCS/data/ericdocsSQL/content_storage_01


Appendix

Scale of Writing Autonomy (Form A)

Dear Student;

Please mark one of the following choices where N stands for ( never) , R ( rarely), S

(sometimes), O (often), and A (always).

When writing English, N R S O A

1) I know clearly what I am writing about.

2) I ask someone to thoroughly explain what I should

include in

my essay.

3) I make my own way in writing.

4) I depend on myself to understand what I am going to

write about.

5) On my own, I identify ideas relevant to my essay.

6) I make use of what I learned before to improve my

writing.

7) I choose the setting relevant for writing on my own.

8) I start writing only after I look at other people’s work.

9) I decide my own standards, techniques, and procedures.

10) I try various writing styles that match task

requirements.

11) I question the usefulness, relevance, and accuracy of

what I include

in my essay.

12) I analyze what I write in order to make sure that I am

handling the

task properly.

13) I revise what I write in order to improve my writing

performance.

14) I depend on myself to identify writing difficulties.

15) On my own, I seek effective solutions to my writing

difficulties.

16) When I face writing difficulties, I wait till someone

offers help.

17) I ask the instructor to provide me with all bits and

pieces I should

include in my essay.


18) I strictly follow the directions dictated by the

instructor.

19) I write about challenging and difficult topics

20) When I need help, I depend mainly on the instructor.

21) I ask the instructor to correct every single error I

make.

22) I consider the instructor to be just a facilitator

23) The instructor decides what we write about; the topic,

ideas, the

quantity, quality, etc.

24) The instructor knows best what I should or should not

write about.

25) I fully depend on the instructor to revise my essays in

order to

identify problems and fix them.

26) I depend on my colleagues to provide me with relevant

writing

resources.

27) I depend on the classroom textbook as the sole source

for writing.

28) I go to the library to gather information relevant to my

writing.

29) Even outside school, I try to obtain relevant writing

material.

30) I use the Internet to search for material I can use in my

writing.

Scale of Writing Autonomy (form B)

Dear Student;

Please mark one of the following choices where N stands for ( never) , R ( rarely), S

(sometimes), O (often), and A (always).

When writing in English, N R S O A

1) I am well aware of my objectives.

2) On my own, I identify the ideas relevant to my essay.


3) I start writing immediately without waiting for help.

4) I ask other students to show me what I should write about.

5) Before I start writing, I read up on several topics relevant to

my essay.

6) I am well aware of various characteristics and requirements

of good

writing.

7) I choose certain topics to write different types of essays on

my own.

8) I write on topics that are challenging and difficult, even if I

do not find enough information

9) I vary my styles and techniques according to the different

Writing tasks.

tasks.

10) I keep a diary of the effective techniques and procedures I

use in

my writing.

11) I decide the relevant place and atmosphere for my writing.

12 I do my best to include the information I learned in various

courses

into my essay.

13) I examine what I write to fit the topic of my essay.

14) On my own, I carry out necessary changes that help

improve my

writing.

15) I depend on myself to identify various types of problems I

face in

writing.

16) I develop my own checklist to evaluate my writing

performance.

17) I regularly ask someone to help me figure out writing

difficulties.

18) I consult various writing texts and resources to find

effective

solutions to my writing difficulties

19) I depend on my classmates to correct my writing errors.

20) I ask the instructor to provides me with minute details I

need for

writing.


21) I literally follow the directions the instructor provides and

write

accordingly.

22) I ask the instructor to correct every single error I make.

23) I go back to the instructor before I make any changes in

my

writing.

24) I ask the instructor just to give me clues about how to

improve my

topic.

25) I depend on myself to obtain relevant writing material.

26) I ask my classmates for basic material I need in writing.

27) I use only the classroom text to develop my essay.

28) I try various resources when writing my essay.

29) I refer to library references for writing material relevant to my essay.

30) I make use of online resources to develop my essay.

Documents

The Effect of Electronic Portfolios on Promoting Iranian ... · The Effect of Electronic Portfolios on Promoting Iranian EFL Learners' Writing Autonomy Fatemeh Baghernezhad Department