Portfolios in the EFL Classroom

Portfolios in the EFL Classroom

Why Teach Writing?• In a recent report, the National Commission

on Writing says, “if students are to make knowledge their own, they must struggle with the details, wrestle with the facts, and rework raw information and dimly under-stood concepts into language they can communicate to someone else. In short, if students are to learn, they must write.”

-foreword by Vartan Gregorian, President, Carnegie Corporation of New YorkGraham, S., & Perin, D. (2007). Writing next: Effective strategies to improve writing of adolescents in middle and high schools – A report to

Carnegie Corporation of New York. Washington, DC: Alliance for Excellent Education.

Students who write:–think independently.–develop insight.–explore thoughts and feelings.–develop intellectual courage.–reason logically.–follow the thread of the lesson in their minds.–visualize a concept and then make it more concrete by writing down their thoughts about it.

-International Center for Leadership in EducationInternational Center for Leadership in Education (ICLE). Strategic Writing Across the Curriculum in Grades 7-12, 2006.

Historical perspective• Portfolios widely used for many years• Late 80s interest in portfolios for as-

sessment (Belanoff and Dickson 1991)

• 90s saw advent of eportfolios • A shift in emphasis away from as-

sessment to learning

Definitions• “collection of student work that

demonstrates achievement or im-provement” (Stiggins 1994)

• “a portfolio is a collection of evidence that is gathered together to show a person’s learning journey over time and to demonstrate their abilities” (But-

ler 2006)

Definitions• “…student writing over time, which

contains exhibits showing the stages in the writing processes a text has gone through and the stages of the writer’s growth as a writer, and evi-dence of the writer’s self-reflection on her/his identity and progress as a writer” (Hamp-Lyons 1996)

Definitions – main characteris-tics

• They are a collection of works,

COLLECTION OF WORKS


• They are purposeful in that they provide evidence of achievement, and improvement


• They are purposeful in that provide evidence of the writer’s self reflection / self assessment


• They are purposeful in that they demonstrate the writing process.

Definitions – main characteris-ticsThey are purposeful in that provide evi-

dence of “the writer’s growth

The extent to which ESL learners benefit from written corrective feedback has been debated at length since Truscott (1996)

mounted a case for its abolition.

Improvements made during revision are not evidence on the effectiveness of correction for improving learn-ers' writing abilityError correction, revision, and learningTruscott, J. , Hsu, A.Y.-p. Journal of Second Language WritingVolume 17, Issue 4, December 2008, Pages 292-305

The accuracy of students who received written correc-tive feedback outperformed those in the control group and that this level of performance was retained 2 months later.Evidence in support of written corrective feedback, Bitchener, J.Journal of Second Language WritingVolume 17, Issue 2, June 2008, Pages 102-118

PEER DISCUSSION• COMPLIMENT

• SUGGEST

• CORRECTIONS ARE• NOT AS IMPORTANT

Where are portfolios used?

• Primary and secondary classrooms• ESL/EFL Classrooms• In tertiary settings:– Teacher education– Medicine– Nursing– Engineering– Dentistry– Psychology

Purposes• Evaluating individual student progress; demon-

strating student accomplishment• Encouraging student efficacy;

• Students with a strong sense of efficacy are more likely to challenge themselves with difficult tasks and be intrinsically motivated.

• Self-efficacious students also recover quickly from setbacks, and ultimately are likely to achieve their personal goals.

• promoting student self-assessment; motivating student performance(Herman, Gearhart and Acshbacher, 1996)

Why Keep Portfolios?• Provides a record of a student’s

growth as a writer.

• Provides an avenue for student reflec-tion on personal strengths and weak-nesses.

• Contributes to student’s sense of self esteem and positive attitude toward writing.

Key features

• Continuous and cumulative as opposed to one-shot

• Less reliance on assessment by teach-ers alone and more involvement of self and peers

• Increased focus on teaching writing as a process

Holroyd (2000)

• Multiple drafts

• Focus on “revision” as opposed to “editing”

• Increased attention given to idea gen-eration and creativity

Key features

Contribution of Portfolios to EFL Learn-ing Process

• Vocabulary and grammar knowledge aware of a variety of words produce more complex and fluent sentences

• Improve Research skill

• Writing skills Organization, brain storming, capitalization, punctua-tion

S. Aydin / Assessing Writing 15 (2010) 194-203

Issues• Time needed for both teachers and

students (Callahan 1995, Herman and Winters 1994)

• Purpose – clear to teacher and stu-dents? (Callahan 1995)– Student anxiety and confusion (Butler

2006)

– Student complaints: Boring, Tiring, Takes too much time; Difficulty provid-ing feedback (S. Aydin 2010)

• Provision of further scaffolding to sup-port writing / learning

• Greater learner autonomy

Opportunities

Celebrate Student Suc-cess

• Opportunity for parent and commu-nity involvement– Students get the opportunity to select

and showcase their best work

• How can you plan a portfolio celebra-tion – just collecting anti-climatic

• Publish some of the students’ work in a booklet or homemade magazine

Traditional Portfolio

Individual

Types of portfolio

•a process portfolio•a showcase portfo-lio

• A process portfolio is not a collection of a student's best work. Showcase portfolios serve that purpose. The pur-pose of a process portfo-lio is to promote student reflection and ownership over the learning process.

Process Portfolio

Process Portfolio

Process Portfolio

Process Portfolio

Process Portfolio

Process Portfolio

Process Portfolio

Showcase Portfolio

Showcase Portfolio

Showcase Portfolio

Showcase Portfolio

Showcase Portfolio

Showcase Portfolio

Showcase Portfolio

Employment (Showcase) Portfolio




Types of portfolio

• A working portfolio

Working Portfolio• A working portfolio can be a box or a folder into which all the material is collected. The material can be com-posed of diaries, drawings, plans, essays, summaries, reports, exercises, feedback, memories, certificates, emails, videos, awards, pho-tos, etc.

Working Portfolios•Group portfolios•Class portfolios

•Portfolios can be boring •So go creative

One of the issues with Portfolios

Working PortfolioGroup






Working Portfolios : Class Port-folios




Working Portfolios : Class Portfo-lios

Working Portfolios : Class Portfo-lios

Working PortfolioIndividual




Types of portfolio

•an assessment port-folio

Traditional PortfolioMeasures student's ability at one time

Measures student's abil-ity over time

Done by teacher alone; stu-dent often unaware of crite-ria

Done by teacher and student; student aware of criteria

Conducted outside instruc-tion Embedded in instruction

Assigns student a grade Involves student in own assessment

Does not capture the range of student's language ability

Captures many facets of language learning per-formance

Does not include the teacher's knowledge of stu-dent as a learner

Allows for expression of teacher's knowledge of student as learner

Does not give student re-sponsibility

Student learns how to take responsibility

Types of portfolio

• A Dossier portfolio – Perfor-mance –Teacher’s Portfolio

http://dieterknowle.wixsite.com/knowle

Teacher’s Portfolio













NowadaysPeople use webpages


A reflective portfolio

A reflective portfolio

E Portfoliosblogging

tweaked blogging as-signment, in particular experiment-ing with the overall structure of the blog the rhythm of postings,

and use of roles.

overall structures:•A hub-and-spoke model, in which every student sets up his or her own blog, and I aggregate their postings on the main class blog.

•A centralized class blog, in which all the students have accounts on the same blog, and their posts and comments all show up in the same place.

experimented with different rhythms:•free-for-all model, • students simply must post some number of blog posts by the end of the semester.

•The checkpoint model, • students must post a specified number of posts by particular checkpoints spread throughout the semester.

•The weekly model, •all students must post every week.

assigned roles,

so that not every student is posting at the same time

furthermore, each group of students has a specific task for that week

So for 4 groups in a class of 20The roles rotate week-to-week from one role to the next

•First Readers: These students are responsible for posting initial questions and insights about the day’s material to the class blog the day before class meets.

•Respondents: Students in this group build upon, disagree with, or clarify the first readers’ posts by the next class meeting.

•Searchers: Students in this group find and share at least one relevant online re-source. In addition to linking to the re-source, the searchers provide a short evaluation of the resource, highlight-ing what makes it worthwhile, un-usual, or, if appropriate, problematic.

•The fourth group has the week off in terms of blogging.

References• Abrami, P. C., & Barrett, H. (2005). Directions for Research and De-

velopment on Electronic Portfolios. Canadian Journal of Learning and Technology, 31(3).

• Belanoff, P., & Dickson, M. (Eds.). (1991). Portfolios : process and product. Portsmouth, N.H.: Boynton/Cook Publishers.

• Calfee, R. C., & Freedman, S. W. (1996). Classroom Writing portfo-lios:Old, New, Borrowed, Blue. In R. C. Calfee & P. Perfumo (Eds.), Writing Portfolios in the Classroom. MahWah, N. J.: L. Erlbaum As-sociates.

• Callahan, S. (1995). Portfolio expectations: Possibilities and limits. Assessing writing, 2(2), 117-151.

• Case, S. H. (1994). Will mandating portfolios undermine their value? Educational Leadership, 52(2), 46-47.

References• Desmet, C., & Cummings, R. (2004). Negotiating the Teaching-As-

sessment Cycle in Writing Programs with XML. Paper presented at the World Conference on E-Learning in Corporate, Government, Healthcare, and Higher Education 2004 Washington DC.

• Frederiksen, J. R., Sipusic, M., Sherin, M., & Wolfe, E. W. (1998). Video Portfolio Assessment: Creating a Framework for Viewing the Functions of Teaching. Educational Assessment, 5(4), 225-297.

• Hamilton, S. J. (2006). A Principle-Based ePort Goes Public (and Almost Loses its Principles). In A. Jafari & C. Kaufman (Eds.), Handbook of Research on ePortfolios (pp. 434-446). Hershey: Idea Group Reference.

• Hamp-Lyons, L. (1990). Second language writing: assessment is-sues. In B. Kroll (Ed.), Second language writing : research insights for the classroom. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

References• Hamp-Lyons, L., & Condon, W. (2000). Assessing the Portfolio:

Principles for Practice Theory and Research. Cresskill, NJ: Hampton Press.

• Heller, J. I., Sheingold, K., & Myford, C. M. (1998). Reasoning about Evidence in Portfolios: Cognitive Foundations for Valid and Reliable Assessment. Educational Assessment, 5(1), 5-40.

• Herman, J. L., Gearhart, M., & Aschbacher, R. (1996). Writing port-folios in the classroom : policy and practice, promise and peril. In R. C. Calfee & P. Perfumo (Eds.), Writing portfolios in the classroom : policy and practice, promise and peril

• (pp. x, 374 p.). Mahwah, N.J.: L. Erlbaum Associates.• Herman, J. L., Gearhart, M., & Baker, E. L. (1993). Assessing writ-

ing portfolios: Issues in the validity and meaning of scores. Educa-tional Assessment, 1(3), 201-224.

References• Herman, J. L., & Winters, L. (1994). Portfolio research: A slim col-

lection. Educational Leadership, 52(2), 48-55.• Hirvela, A., & Sweetland, Y. L. (2005). Two case studies of L2 writ-

ers' experiences across learning-directed portfolio contexts. As-sessing writing, 10, 192-213.

• Holt, D., & Baker, N. W. (1991). Portfolios as a follow-up option in a proficiency-testing program. In P. Belanoff & M. Dickson (Eds.), Portfolios: process and product. Portsmouth NH: Boynton/Cook.

• Jafari, A., & Kaufman, C. (Eds.). (2006). Handbook of Research on ePortfolios. Hershey: Idea Group Reference.

• Murphy, S., & Camp, R. (1996). Moving towards systemic coher-ence: A discussion of conflicting perspectives on portfolio assess-ment. In R. C. Calfee & P. Perfumo (Eds.), Writing portfolios in the classroom: policy and practice, promise and peril. Mahwah, N.J.: L. Erlbaum Associates.

References• Nystrand, M., Cohen, A. S., & Dowling, N. M. (1993). Addressing re-

liability problems in the portfolio assessment of college writing. Educational Assessment, 1(1), 53-70.

• O'Brien, K. (2006). ePortfolios as Learning Construction Zones. In A. Jafari & C. Kaufman (Eds.), Handbook of research on ePortfolios (pp. 74-82). Hershey: Idea Group Reference.

• Ostheimer, M. W., & White, E. M. (2005). Portfolio assessment in an American college. Assessing writing, 10, 61-73.

• Pullman, G. (2002). Electronic Portfolios Revisited: The efolios Project. Computers and Composition, 19, 151-169.

• Richardson, S. (2000). Students' conditioned response to teachers' response: Portfolio proponents, take note! Assessing Writing, 7, 117-141.

References• Song, B., & August, B. (2002). Using Portfolios to Assess the Writ-

ing of ESL Students: A Powerful Alternative? Journal of Second Language Writing, 11, 49-72.

• Spalding, E., & Cummins, G. (1998). It was the best of times. It was a waste of time: University of Kentucky students' view of writ-ing under KERA. Assessing Writing, 5(2), 167-199.

• Stiggins, R. J. (1994). Student-centred classroom assessment. New York: Merrill.

• Wagner, M., & Lamoureaux, E. (2006). Implementing an Outcome-Based Assessment ePortfolio. In A. Jafari & C. Kaufman (Eds.), Handbook of Research on ePortfolios (pp. 539-550). Hershey: Idea Group Reference.

• Weigle, S. C. (2002). Assessing writing. Cambridge, UK Cambridge University Press.

References• Yancey, K. B. (1996). Portfolio as genre, rhetoric as reflection: Situ-

ating selves, literacies, and knowledge. WPA 19(3), 55-69.• Yao, Y., Thomas, M., Nickens, N., Downing, J. A., Burkett, R. S., &

Lamson, S. (2008). Validity evidence of an electronic portfolio for preservice teachers. Educational Measurement: Issues and Prac-tice, Spring 2008, 10-24.

Thank you