Can Metalinguistic Awareness be invited? An Empirical Study
of EFL Portfolio-Combined Conversation Course
Li, Chia-Yi 李嘉宜
Chen, I-Chen 陳怡真
allison@mail.stut.edu.tw
jennychen@mail.stut.edu.tw
Department of Applied English
Southern Taiwan University of Technology
Abstract
Since the standardized spoken tests labeling the scores on the “final
performance” provide little information about learners’ metalinguistic development,
learner’s progress over time and classroom interaction are hardly considered. Delett,
Barnhart & Kevorkain (2001) proposed the benefits of the literacy portfolio because
this alternative assessment offers an integrative perspective of learning process and a
collection of literacy achievement, taking the cognitive, social, academic context into
account. Through portfolio assessment, language can be assessed as medium for
communication and cognition. Nevertheless, still little to know that portfolio
assessment may match the needs of EFL conversation classroom.
This experiment was significant in developing a better understanding of EFL
technology university learners’ perceptions and attitude toward portfolio assessment
and traditional tests respectively. Two groups of learners participated in the
four-month-long case study. The findings showed that the portfolio (experimented)
group had a feeling of growing awareness, higher interests and controlling progress.
However, more than 65% of them failed to fulfill “portfolios helped self-monitor
errors” partially because of the limited linguistic knowledge. On the contrary,
non-portfolio (controlled) group expressed that traditional assessment led both oral
communication courses to be less motivating and conversational activities to be less
diverse. And, they had great concern with teacher’s error correction and scoring
system. The possible suggestions for theory and practice are provided.
Keywords: portfolio assessment, metalinguistic awareness, autonomy, authenticity,
oral communication.
1. A New Vision
1.1 Call for an Alternative Approach
With regard to mastering oral communication, business students used to show
the desire to pursue knowledge and the stronger commitment to learning. The mental
1
awareness of business-majored students often affects the ways they interact with
others. Not only cannot traditional testing satisfy the needs for assessing the
achievement of more process-oriented learning, it is also unable to measure the
dynamics of business majors. Since such standardized spoken tests (e.g. interview,
etc.) labeling the scores on the “final performance” provide little information about
metalinguistic development, they hardly record learner’s progress over time and
consider classroom interactions.
In addition, traditional assessment rises up learning
anxiety and fails to reflect learners’ daily efforts. As a result, portfolio approach
appears well for collaboration between students and teacher.
It is viewed as a tap in
the cognitive process of EFL students through learners’ perspectives of learning.
There has been a call for more attention to a better assessment approach to
measure learner’s progress.
Portfolio is a means for recording experiences,
reflections, and thoughts. This approach can help EFL learners actively participate in
assessing their own work and keep track of their individual progress.
Delett,
Barnhart, and Kevorkain (2001) proposed that “Portfolios provide a portrait of what
students know and what they can do, offer a multidimensional perspective of student
progress over time, encourage student self-reflection and participation, and link
instruction and assessment.” In fact, portfolio assessment has been implemented in L1
settings in these decades, more research is still needed in the EFL classrooms. In
2
Taiwan, the portfolio assessment has been practiced in writing classroom, centered on
correction or feedback (Chen, 1999; Hsieh, 2000). However, this study would
investigate Taiwanese EFL college students’ speaking experiences and reflection.
Moreover, this study assumed that the interaction was essential of the portfolio
process in which language, cognition, autonomy might influence EFL learners’
acceptance or rejection of the portfolio oral proficiency.
1.2 The Significance of the Study
To give a clear picture of language growth of EFL students, this portfolio
assessment was limited to oral communication course. The major significance of this
study was:
a. A record of student’s progress and self-assessment
It is believed that the recording system can develop learners’ abilities to review,
reflect, and set goals for oral communication. According to Fisher (1991, p.1),
portfolio must contribute to personal development “by enhancing self-esteem,
developing self-awareness, improving motivation”. For intermediate-level EFL
learners, recording the processes assists recognizing achievement of in and out of
school, give an evidence of individual social, cultural, cognitive achievement.
b. Promoting metalinguistic awareness
Along with stimulating self-reflection, which can examine strength and
3
weakness, there has been a growing awareness of the use of comprehensible output.
Lylis (1993) believed that effective learners made connections between reading,
writing, and language learning. The more autonomous learners develop, the more
effective feedback they could provide. It was believed that those independent
speakers could articulate their understanding and express how they solve
speaking/listening problems.
c. Language use as meaning-constructed behavior in real-life context
Moreover, portfolios establish a dynamic partnership engaging students, teacher,
and society. Classroom interaction in touch with real-life language develops effective
skills and strategies because of participating in language use for authentic purposes.
In the portfolio process, language tasks give opportunities for production and students
are encouraged to achieve a particular communicative goal (Swain, 1985; Willis,
1996; Guarento and Morley, 2001).
1.3 Research Questions
Based on the background and assumption above, the researcher conducted the
study on the implementation of portfolio in EFL context.
The research questions
aimed to investigate:
1.) Students’ self-reflection and metalinguistic experiences.
2.) Students’ attitude toward English learning in a portfolio-combined course.
4
3.) The prospected students’ benefits from portfolio assessment.
The essential elements of the framework of portfolio assessment are: the
participants (language manager), the researcher/teacher (facilitator/ consultant), the
assessment criteria, the authentic tasks, and the learner interactions.
Figure1. A conceptual framework for portfolio assessment
Knowledge
and ability
Business
Examination
conditions
Students
Tasks
Research
Design
Literature review
&
Construction
Language works
Evaluation
and
Reflection
Assessment
criteria
Assessment
conditions and
training
Examiners
Knowledge
and ability
2. Review of Literature
2.1 Portfolio as an alternative assessment
With the recent concentration on assessments that record learner’s growth,
reflection, and ownership, portfolios have been a form of authentic assessments. The
portfolio tasks could integrate all aspects of language--reading, writing, speaking, and
5
listening as well as higher-level thinking skills and strategies. Hamayan (1995:
213-215) reviewed the characteristics of alternative assessment that made it useful in
oral training classroom: 1) Proximity to actual language use and performance; 2) A
holistic view of language; 3) An integrative view of learning; 4) Developmental
appropriateness; 5) Multiple referencing. Hamayan (1995) also claimed that
alternative assessment procedures are based on activities that have authentic
communicative function. The language use is assessed according to actual
performance in authentic situations, which the learners encounter in daily life.
Therefore, through portfolio approach, it is possible to evaluate language as a tool for
communication rather than the structural analysis. These multidimensional
perspectives cover the process integrating knowledge and transform student attitude
toward learning (Marzano, 1994). The practical reasons for using portfolios for
communication were summarized (Hart, 1994: 1). It aids a student in self-assessment,
a crucial life skill. 2) It is a highly effective instructional tool as well as an assessment
tool. 3) It exemplifies language use as meaning-constructed behavior. 4) It supports
student ownership for improvement. 5) It keeps the focus on genuine,
student-oriented purposes. 6) It promotes audience awareness; 7) It emphasizes
written and spoken activities that reflect each student’s unique background and
interests. It helps a student develop a very positive attitude. 8) It promotes
6
student-teacher interaction and collaboration among students.
2.2 Theoretical Framework
Linking instruction and assessment
The portfolios have been linking instruction, learning, and assessment (Merzano
& Costa, 1988; Hsieh, 2000). This approach has attempted to realize the perspectives
of the participants as they construct their meaning because portfolios allow frequent
opportunities to practice authentic language use in relevant contexts and for specific
purposes. Therefore, interaction plays an essential role in the portfolio process in
which the “construct of the ‘self’ exits. As Lylis (1993) commented, that language
teachers might use a “formative type of assessment that is diagnostic in nature and
informs teachers and students alike of progress made” (p.13). By exploring the
weakness or strength of business major, students would commit to their ownerships
for oral language development. Different from traditional assessment, the portfolio
approach has viewed culture as an essential ingredient to understanding the ESL
student’s experience (Coballes-Vega, 1992). Portfolio was applicable to this study
because it made business students from diverse background willing to talk about how
they learn to speak and recall process. Actually, in recent decades, the concern of
assessment has changed to multidimensional, and the focus has switched from
product to process (Hebert, 1992; Merzano & Costa, 1988; Krest, 1990; Poston,
7
1993).
The Portfolio process and Cognitive Development
The portfolio as the collection of student’s growth serves as a medium to
understand students’ cognitive processes which connect social, cultural, and
linguistics factors (Gonzalez, 1999). According to Hansen (1992), students responded
to reflective questions, such as” How does this item show my growth?”
demonstrating their individual point of views and uncovering the awareness of the
literacy. And, in Hebert’s portfolio project, “Learning Experience forms”, adapting
Gardner’s “Theory of Multiple Intelligences” (musical, linguistic, logicalmathematical, spatial, bodily kinesthetic, interpersonal, and intrapersonal) reacted
again the traditional explanation of intelligence.
The forms were used to recognize
teacher’s relationship with students. Herbert termed “inside language”-- what we do
in our classroom and “outside language”--what we say we do in our classroom. The
former reflected the beliefs, experiences, values, and confidence, but the latter was
influenced by learning environment, test sores, and language curriculum (Herbert,
1992).
Indeed, “inside language” is more difficult because there were some
linguistic limitations that made it more difficult to share understanding and beliefs of
EFL learners.
Authentic experiences to EFL learner
8
Student portfolios are self-selected (Hansen, 1992), so their choice demonstrated
significant involvement with speaking and listening at the appropriate level of
English language proficiency. Hansen (1992) reported that the comments of the
literacy portfolio from peers and family encouraged a relevant curriculum. With
respect to interests and concern of learners, evaluation could be more comprehensive.
Moreover, Valencia (1990) concluded guiding principles of assessment: authentic,
continuous, multidimensional, and collaborative. This study generalized that around
70% among the portfolio group and the non-portfolio group agreed with the
implementation of the authentic assessment. Valencia agreed with the principle of
authenticity for good assessment should mirror understanding and “resemble actual
classroom and life tasks” (Valencia, 1990). That was, they could integrate into
ongoing classroom life and instruction. Not only did students listen and speak for a
variety of authentic tasks, they should be presented with the various texts during
assessment. Additionally, the portfolio experience is meaningful to EFL students
because the process is authentic. Their reflection expressed how and why students
express themselves (Poston, 1993). The uses of checklists, reviews, conferences,
student oral presentations, oral reading, or interviews with teacher or peers on
audiocassettes are included. Tied to the portfolio process and students’ experiences,
we might collect language samples of student works over a period of time to track
9
student development.
Previous model of collaborative portfolio
Hsieh (2000) advocated the model of “collaborative portfolio”. The relevant
research emphasized that teacher and learners had to cooperate together for
evaluation and collection. This collaborative portfolio is also good for the present
study because of the big-size classroom and limited language proficiency. Jenkins
pointed out the contents of this model (Jenkins, 1996, cited in Hsieh, 2000) must
capture students understanding across the three areas: a.) Affective development, b.)
Cognitive development c.) Metacognitive development. Jekins (p21-22, cited in
Hsieh, 2000) believed that collaborative assessments possess the characteristics: 1)
Genuine literacy endeavors and a variety of social context. 2) The purpose of
monitoring students’ development. 3) Taping students’ affective, cognitive,
metacognitive understanding. 4) Encouraging self-evaluation. 5) Process-oriented
assessment. Through well-designed portfolios, students can document the process
of trail and error in language development. While speaking in the English language,
students actively process the content of the passage, selectively attend to interesting
element, relate new information to what they already knew, and infer the meaning of
unknown words from the context. On the other hand, teachers must take the
responsibility for guiding learners to evaluate. For example, teacher could help
10
learners set up criteria and make sure “the collaboration profiles students’ abilities”.
3. Methodology
3.1 Participants
Two groups of learners, who received one-year freshman English, with four
skills training and the sense of basic sentence patterns, were taking “English Oral
Training” course in the fall semester of the sophomore year at a university of
technology.
All participants meet the following criteria: a) categorized as the
intermediate-low to intermediate language proficiency level as measured by their
score of General English Proficiency Level; b) business majors: showing no prior
portfolio experiences and strong commitments to their learning; c) the age ranged
from 19 to 22 year. This study proposed that the controlled group with traditional
assessment was Industrial Management department students and the experimented
group with portfolio assessment was Finance and Banking majors (see Figure 2). The
research participants were expected to benefit in this study in the followings: a) the
optimal chance to practice their written and oral communicative skills in real context;
b) more aware of English learning process; c) promoting self-reflection through the
portfolio approach.
Figure 2. Experimented and Controlled groups
Group
Major
Male
Controlled
Industrial Management
25
15
40
Experimented
Finance and Banking
10
30
40
Total
Business majors
35
45
80
11
Female
Total
3.2 Design and Procedure
The process of this experiment is described as Figure 3. The study employed a
teacher/researcher-student partnership. The main focus was on exploration of
students’ perceptions and attitude toward portfolio assessment and traditional tests
respectively. The researcher collected data through field observation, student’s
reflection from evaluation form, questionnaires, and information of student portfolio
of experimental group.
The products of students’ portfolio were arranged in a time
order (see Appendix V) and evaluated by peers or researcher (teacher).
There were three main stages in this four-month-long case study.
middle September was the fist stage.
Around the
Basing the content of the instructions on
learner’s needs, both the experimented and the controlled groups were required to fill
out self-reflection questionnaire (Appendix I) and survey their interests and general
attitude toward practicing oral communication (Appendix II).
Then, during the
October to December, the second stage, all participants were given the same
instructional activities. The only difference depended on the testing method: the
experimented group had to keep their works in their portfolio, so that their learning
progress could be detected. The performance of the controlled group was given
standardized tests based on scoring and one pencil-and-pen test.
Near the end of the
study, in the third stage, the final questionnaires (Appendix IV) were conducted to
12
explore the participants’ feedback toward assessment tools around late December.
Mediation
Pre-test
Experimented
group
Controlled
group
* Self-Reflection
Questionnaire
* Learner attitude
toward oral
communication
* Self-Reflection
Questionnaire
* Learner attitude
toward oral
communication
Post-test
Learner awareness
Questionnaire
Portfolio assessment

Record-keeping

Self/peer evaluation

Teacher-student conference
Learner awareness
Questionnaire
Traditional assessment

Paper-and-pencil test

Oral proficient test
Figure 3. The process of the experiment
3.3 Data Analysis
The analysis centered on emergent patterns induced from the observations, the
questionnaires, and student portfolio. The classroom observation portrayed the ways
students interacted with teacher and student’s attitude toward evaluation process.
For data collected from interest survey and student learning attitude questionnaire,
categories included: a.) The student’ interests toward oral communication (Appendix
I). b.) The general attitude toward practicing oral communication (Appendix II). For
data collected from student perception and feedback questionnaire (Appendix IV),
categories included: a.) Q1-4: students’ perception of the connection between
assessment, learning, and instruction. b.) Q 5-8: students’ attitude toward authenticity
through engagement. c.) Q9-12: students’ development of autonomous learning.
Besides, data collected from student portfolios showed the evidence for self-reflection
13
and the evaluation process. The language samples were tape-recorded, transcribed,
and analyzed.
4. Findings
4.1 Classroom observation
In the experimented group classroom, most of EFL college students had no
previous experience of the portfolio assessment.
The advanced learners were more
self-regulated, active in following teacher’s instructions, participating classroom
activities, and responding to peer-evaluation sheets. However, the less skilled learners
reluctantly engaged at first and easily got lost. Therefore, the teacher/researcher
adjusted the instructional goals (refer to Appendix V): Task 4: self-selected topic good
for independent searching and thinking. And, Task 5: teamwork by which lower
learners could benefit from peer assistance.
4.2 Self-reflection
According to background and interest survey, it was found out that student
preferred communicative, authentic, and applicable topics: pop song (66%), food
(58%), travel (47%), shopping (45%), and films (41%). The difficulties they
encountered most often derived from lack of confidence on speaking out and listening
in, whereas they thought their proficiency level were enough to read independently.
The experimented students showed their stronger commitments to learning and
14
willingness to collect their recording works.
The following tables suggested the questionnaire pre-tested general attitude
toward practicing oral communication (Appendix II) before the implementation of
assessments.
It was shown that both groups demonstrated similar patterns. They
all felt interested in oral communication courses but the current instruction hours are
not sufficient and the conversational activities are not so motivating. Three out of
fourths expected that their communicative abilities needed further improvements.
Most importantly, toward questions 10 and 11, they had great concern with teacher’s
error correction and scoring system. Still, they hardly spoke well in new context and
had difficulties in employing appropriate expressions (questions 8 and 9).
Figure 4: A comparative study of learner’s attitude toward oral communication
Learner's Attitude Towad Oral Communication
strongly disagree
40
30
20
10
0
disagree
agree
strongly agree
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9 10 11 12
Table (a) Experimented group
Learner's Attitude Toward Oral Communication
strongly disagree
35
30
disagree
25
20
15
agree
10
5
strongly agree
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9 10 11 12
Table (b) Controlled group
15
4.3 Students’ perceptions of portfolio assessment
The questionnaire revealed that the portfolio (experimented) group had a feeling
of growing awareness, higher interests and controlling progress.
More than 95 % of
participants choose “agree” or “strongly agree” with the portfolio approach arising
learning interests. About a half of portfolio group agreed the number of language
task was acceptable, but still a half of this group thought there was too much to carry
out.
As a matter of fact, the content of the portfolios required the integration of four
skills. Furthermore, over three-fourth “agree” or “strongly agree” with the concepts of
commitments to real-life situations and connection to daily basis.
They had
attempted to seek for external resources for assistance with serious attitude. As for the
degree of responsibility for self-learning, the results indicated that more than
three-fourths certified “portfolios recorded learning achievement” and “portfolios
improved speaking and listening “. Although over 95% of learners responded to
“agree” or “strongly degree” with “portfolio enriched the content of conversation”,
more than 65% of them failed to fulfill “portfolios helped self-monitor my errors”
partially because of the limited linguistic knowledge.
On the contrary, non-portfolio (controlled) group expressed that traditional
assessment led both oral communication course to be less motivating and
conversational) activities to be less diverse. The results reflected over 85% of this
16
group thought the learning pressure existed in standardized tests.
And, it was not so
possible for traditional assessment to connect language use in real-life context.
Based on traditional assessment, learners preferred teacher’s error correction. As a
result, they gained less control of their learning and expected the more organized
instructions given by the teacher. Each group’s perceptions of the effectiveness of
assessment tool are displayed in Figure 5.
Figure 5: A comparative study of student’s perception of assessment effectiveness
Student's perceptions of the effectiveness of portfolio assessment
40
strongly disagree
30
disagree
20
agree
10
strongly agree
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10 11 12
Table (a): experimented group
Number of partisipants
Student's perceptions of the effectiveness of traditional assessment
40
strongly disagree
30
disagree
20
agree
10
strongly agree
11
9
7
5
3
1
0
Table (b): controlled group
5. Discussions and Recommendation
The results showed that the portfolio assessment appeared more effectively than
traditional assessment. The portfolio group demonstrated the potentials in developing
17
metalinguistic awareness, learning attitude, and authenticity. In this study, EFL
college learners were positive toward self-discovery because they were able to
connect to real-life context. The metalinguistic development tied to the portfolio
process confirmed that the concern of assessment was no longer “the final product”
but shifted to “the process”. As a result of this research, I propose the possible
suggestions for theory and practice.
5.1. Sharing their stories
The results of the present study were compatible with the concept of Paulson,
Paulson (1991, p.1): “Portfolios tell a story…put in anything that helps tell the story.”
EFL learners’ participation and reflection played essential roles in the process of
metalinguistic awareness. They might go through the stage of struggles, but teachers
had to be patient and supportive to provide assistances until they could be
independent in evaluating.
Finally, they were guided to reach different stages of
understanding. That proved the ideas, the “assessment process more meaningful” and
“a powerful learning experience”(Hebert, 1992).
5.2 Inner and outer connection
Portfolios are a connection between “inner life” and “outer life”. Reciting
Valencia’s summary: “The real value of a portfolio does not lie in its physical
appearances, location, or organization; rather it is in the mindset that it instills in
18
students and teachers (Valencia, 1990: 340). The interplay of cognition and language
for EFL has been explored in the inner refection about the portfolio process.
It also
developed great thinking because students were more concern with self-control and
independent learning. This study revealed that students’ attitude toward genuine
communication outside the classroom; therefore, the portfolio process is more
“dynamic” due to student-teacher interaction and learner collaboration.
5.3 Involving students in evaluation
Valencia (1990) stated assessment must provide for active, collaborative
reflection by both teacher and students.
In this empirical study, portfolios invited
students to view their performance as a part of ‘developmental process’, instead of
‘an end point’. Within the sense of ownership for language, portfolios helped
“evaluate how well we have learned and what we need to learn next” (Valencia, 1990:
338). Collaborative assessment ties students and teacher as partners.
In light of this,
students ensure about criteria, goals, and process, which reflect on their needs and
strengths.
5.4 Limitations
There were still some practical problems in this portfolio study:
Linguistics factors
The main problems of the portfolio derived from that student comments required
19
a great deal of target language knowledge, but student’s language ability varies in
conversation course. The lower level learners showed reluctance in interaction at the
beginning of the portfolio production and self-evaluation process.
However, they
became more responsible for expressing English language with lower anxiety after
interacting with capable peers.
Affective factors
The implementation of portfolio must pay attention to EFL students’ affective
factor. The findings indicated although the portfolio assessment brought lower
pressure to learning and an increased motivation in speaking practice, the anxiety of
limited language learners went up during the same process. Teacher must provide
immediate support for that.
Time constraints
For a teacher, comment criteria and portfolio classroom management were very
time-consuming.
For students, it took time and effort to compile, self-assess, and
prepare portfolios for teacher-student conferences. Besides, it was fairly hard to
allocate proper time for student-teacher portfolio conferences and interviews.
Teacher’ role
In this study, the teacher had to be an instructor and a researcher at the same time,
in order to observe classroom instruction, support encouragement, guide student
20
reflection, and analyze student portfolio works. The two-hour instruction per week
was not sufficient for intensive teacher-student interaction. Regarding the role of a
teacher, portfolio assessment is suggested to base on three conditions: First, teacher
must receive good training in rating student oral performance. Criteria are set up for
guiding learning rather than grading the final performance. Second, teacher has to
ensure scaffolding and feedback because strengthening student’s positive attitude can
develop language abilities. Third, teacher is expected to connect learning, instruction,
and assessment in a more meaningful way.
This research focused on an analysis of the perspectives and experiences of
vocational university students. By comparing the perception and experiences of the
portfolio group with those of non-portfolio group, as teachers and researchers, we
may prospect some valuable findings, which can transfer to similar college settings.
It is apparent that more research regarding oral proficiency is needed at all levels.
Due to the lack of research focusing on EFL business learners, further attention
should be drawn to the construction process of EFL student’s oral communication and
how much attempts of authenticity can be promote. The future research on oral
proficiency still needs for extended engagement.
The issues of linguistic, affective,
social, metacognitive connection should be employed and explored.
References
Adams, M.L. and J.R. Frith. (Eds.) (1979). Testing Kit. Washington D.C. Foreign Service Institute.
Chen, Y. M. (1999). A portfolio approach to EFL University writing instruction. Proceeding of the 16th
21
National conference on English teaching and learning in the Republic of China. P313-332.
National Changhua Normal University, Chang-Hua, Taiwan.
Chu, H. M. (2000). Pronunciation teaching and evaluation. Junior High School and Elementary School
Nine-year Integrated Curriculum Teaching and Evaluation Research. Taipei: Ministry of
Education.
Coballes-Vega, C. (1992). Consideration in teaching culturally diverse children. ERIC Document
Reproduction Service No. 341 648.
Delett, J.S., S. Barnhart and J.A. Kevorkian. (2001) “A Framework for Portfolio Assessment in the
Foreign Language Classroom” Foreign Language Annals, 34(6), 561-568.
Fisher, R. (1991). Recording achievement in primary schools. Basil Blackwell Ltd.
Frazier, D.M. and F. L. Paulson. (1992). How portfolio motivate reluctant writers. Educational
Leadership, 49, 62-65.
Guariento, W. and J. Morley. (2001) Text and Task Authenticity in the EFL classroom. ELT Journal, 55
(4), 347-353.
Gonzalez, V. (1999). Language and cognitive development in second language learning.
Needham
Heights, MA: Allyn & Bacon.
Hart, D. (1994). Authentic Assessment: A Handbook for Educators.
Addison-Wesley Publishing
Company.
Hamayan, E.V. (1995). Approaches to alternative assessment. Annual Review of Applied Linguistics,
15, 212-226.
Hansen, J. (1992). Literacy Portfolio: Helping students know themselves. Educational Leadership, 49,
66-68.
Hebert, E.A. (1992). Portfolios invite reflection- from students and staff. Educational Leadership, 49,
58-61.
Hsieh, Y. F. (2000) Implementation of Portfolio Assessment in a sixth grade EFL Classroom. Master
thesis, National Taiwan Normal University.
Lylis, S.J. (1993). A descriptive study and analysis of two first grade teacher’s development and
implementation of writing –portfolio assessments. Ed. D. Dissertation. University of
Massachusetts.
Marzano, R. J. (1994). Assessing student outcomes: performance assessment using dimensions of
learning models. Alexandrian, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.
Merzano, R.J. and A.L. Costa. (1988). Question: Do standardized tests measure general cognitive skills?
Answer: No. Educational Leadership, 45 (8), 66-71.
Krest, Margie. (1990). “Adapting the Portfolio to Meet Student Needs” English Journal, P30.
O’Neil, John. (1992). Putting performance assessment to the test. Educational Leadership, 49, 14-19.
Padilla, A. M., J.C. Aninao and H. Sung. (1996) Development and implementation of student Portfolio
assessment in second language programs. Foreign Language Annals, 29(3), 429-438.
Padilla, A.M., D.M. Silva and T. Nomachi. (1996). Portfolio assessment for secondary school foreign
language classes. Paper presented at the meeting of the American Council on the Teaching of
Foreign Languages, Philadelphia, PA.
Paulson, F. L. and P. R. Paulson. (1991). “Portfolios: Stories of knowing.” Pre-publication draft.
Poston, C. H. (1993). Theory into practice: personal voice, process, and portfolio. (ERIC Document
Reproduction Service No. ED 358 476).
Swain, M. (1985). Communicative competence: some roles of comprehensible input and
comprehensible out in its development, in S. Gass and C. Madden (eds.):Input in Second
Language Acquisition. Rowley: Newbury House.
Valencia, S. (1990). A portfolio approach to classroom reading assessment: The whys, whats, and hows.
22
The Reading Teacher, 43, 338-340.
Valencia, S. and K.Wixson (1991). Diagnostic teaching. The Reading Teacher, 44, 420-422.
Willis, J. (1996). A Framework for Task-based Learning. London: Longman.
Appendix I: Students’ Interest and Language Perception Survey
請選擇 5 項你比較感興趣的主題,並在空格內打圈圈: (Adapted from Hsieh, 2000)
1
勵志小品
11
休閒興趣與嗜好
2
流行文化
12
問候與應對
3
日常活動
13
問路與引路
4
電視影集
14
人物描述
5
流行歌曲
15
商業
6
節慶傳統
16
身體部位及相關動作
7
文學故事
17
旅遊
8
新聞報紙
18
服裝
9
網站科技
19
食物與餐飲
10
電影欣賞
20
購物
系級
姓別
英文學習經驗：，學了
年，每週學英文大約
小時。我的英文大部分是跟
(自
己、朋友、家庭、學校、補習班)學的。(可複選)
學英文最困難的地方:__________________________________________________________________________________
學英文最簡單的地方是：_______________________________________________________________________________
＊
檔案評量叮嚀
1.
請同學正式準備好一個檔案夾
2. 希望同學能在生活上實際行動英文
Appendix II: Student attitude toward oral communication courses
Student attitude
Strongly
Strongly
Toward Oral Communication Course
Disagree
Disagree
Agree
Agree
1. Oral communication courses are interesting
□
□
□
□
2. Oral communication course are important
□
□
□
□
3. I don’t have to prepare for oral communication courses
□
□
□
□
4. Oral communication courses can improve my spoken ability
□
□
□
□
5. The instructions hours can be prolonged
□
□
□
□
6. I like to take oral communication course
□
□
□
□
7. The activity diversities of oral communication can be increased.
□
□
□
□
8. I always can express appropriately what I want to say
□
□
□
□
9. I find myself hardly speak well in an unfamiliar context.
□
□
□
□
10. Teacher’s correction is important to me
□
□
□
□
11. Teacher’s grading is important to me
□
□
□
□
□
□
□
□
23foster my
12. In daily life, I used to collect materials relevant to topics to
English abilities
Appendix III: Peer Evaluation Form
Pronunciation Evaluation
Class：
Name：
No：
Date： ___ /
/
Result of Assessment
Items
Criteria
Good
Bad
Comment
Word
1
Accuracy
Accuracy
2
Dialogue
Fluency
Accuracy
3
Short passage
Fluency
Intonation
(Adapted from Chu, 2000)
Appendix IV: Student Perception and Feedback Toward Language Assessment
Strongly
Student perception and feedback toward language
Strongly
Disagree
Disagree
Agree
Agree
□
□
□
□
□
□
□
□
□
□
□
□
assessment
This assessment made me fell more interested in oral
1 communication
Based on this assessment, I hope the instructions hours can
2
be prolonged
This
assessment
could
increase
the
diversity
of
3
conversational activities
4
This assessment lowered learning pressure
□
□
□
□
5
This assessment led me to commit to real-life situations
□
□
□
□
□
□
□
□
□
□
□
□
□
□
□
□
□
□
□
□
□
□
□
□
□
□
□
□
□
□
□
□
This assessment helped me connect English learning with
6
daily life
7 assessment helped me resort to the external resources
This
This assessment helped me expand my learning in and out
8
of school
This assessment improved my speaking and listening
9
abilities
10
This assessment enriched the content of conversation
This assessment evaluated my learning process and
11
academic progress
12
This assessment helped self-monitor my errors
24
Appendix V
Portfolio Table of Contents
Language Level：Intermediate-low –Intermediate
Student Name：
Contents
Task
Date
Relevant Goal
Audio Video Written
Topic
Activity
Areas
1

09-30
Name Card Introducing personal information.
Communication
Communication
2
10-14

Culture

Design
Student pair exchanges greetings.
Cultural
Express instructions of how to make a pot
awareness: of British tea.
Communities
Comparisons
British Tea Comparing with the ways of Chinese tea
Making
making.
Listen to a short story about Thanksgiving
3
11-11
Thanksgiving with visual aids.

Culture
Tradition
Paragraph writing by about showing thanks.
Connections
Orally practice through peer-evaluation.
4
11-25


Communication Self-selected
Collecting relevant information.
Connections
topic
Communication
Listen to the radio program.
5
12-23


Culture
Radio Station
Tape-recording group’s performance.
Connections
Presenting to the class.
Communities
25