Lau portfolio a16709

25
The Implementation of Portfolio Assessment in an ESL/EFL Classroom
Sok-Han (Monica) Lau
Introduction
How could my students be more
autonomous and responsible in their
learning? How could I motivate my
students to learn? Is there a better way to
evaluate my students’ learning progress
other than the traditional pencil-and-paper
test? These were questions I posed to
myself when I was an EFL teacher in
Macau. Besides these questions, I also had
some basic questions about classroom
management, teaching tools, students’
progress, and so on. After some careful
observation and reflection, I realized that
one of the biggest factors that triggered all
of my questions was seeing students’ lack of
motivation to learn English. Teaching high
school students in Macau for three years, I
gradually came to realize the cause of my
students’ low level of motivation. I believe
it might have come from the design of the
evaluation procedures that did not truly
reflect the students’ capabilities in the
application of the English language.
Evaluation was mainly in the traditional
approach, which is based on the philosophy
that one test will fit all students despite
individual differences. Furthermore, the
administrators were highly concerned about
the examination scores and used them to
determine how diligent students were and
how well teachers performed. Under these
circumstances, teachers faced great pressure
to boost the scores of students. Thus,
teachers spent most of their time making
exercises for students to practice for their
tests rather than focusing on the
effectiveness of the tests and the curriculum
or the needs of the students. Yet,
alternative assessment was hardly
considered as an option.
Coming from this situation, I started to
have interests in different kinds of
assessment. Certainly, I did not know what
alternative assessment was at that time. I
only had the desire to go beyond pencil-
and-paper tests when I assessed students’
performance. For example, in assessing
students’ writing skills and the effectiveness
of my teaching methodologies, I would set
up conferences with students to discuss
their papers so they had the chance to
clarify what they wanted to write. After
that, they could go home and rewrite their
papers. Thus, instead of just collecting the
final product of the students’ writing, I gave
them a second chance to rewrite it. This
method was not used by the other teachers,
and I had a difficult time being persistent in
implementing it in the curriculum, partly
because of the large size of the classes.
While taking courses toward my
master’s degree in Teaching English as a
Second Language at Hawai‘i Pacific
University, I have begun to learn some of
the differences between traditional and
alternative assessment, particularly portfolio
assessment. Essentially, traditional
assessment involves the employment of
paper-and-pencil, standardized tests to
assess students’ performance under time
pressure. Portfolio assessment, on the
other hand, can evaluate students
holistically based on the content of the
portfolio on which the teachers and
students agree. Moreover, it focuses greatly
on individual differences. As language
cannot be acquired overnight, the portfolio
can give students a chance to build up their
experiences in language learning, and this
experience can motivate students to be
more involved in the classroom because
they feel that they have control in their own
learning rather than just having the teachers
tell them what they have to learn. Perhaps
the most useful aspect of portfolio
assessment is that it is learner-centered. For
example, as a newly trained teacher, I can
bring my portfolio with me wherever I
teach, and the portfolio can help me to
further my interest in the field of ESL as
well as remind me of what I have learned.
With portfolio assessment, students can

26
have a sense of accomplishment after they
compile their in-class or outside-class work.
However, at least in some EFL
contexts such as Macau, instead of
substituting the traditional assessment with
portfolio assessment altogether, integrating
it into the curriculum is a better choice at
this point because this form of assessment
is still finding its way into the mainstream of
assessment due to limited information on
validity and reliability. In order to
implement portfolio assessment in an EFL
or ESL classroom, we need to first
understand the basic concepts of the use of
the portfolio and the advantages and
disadvantages of using portfolio assessment.
Definition and Purposes of The
Portfolio
In defining the word portfolio, people have
different points of views. Some teachers
consider the use of a portfolio as part of an
alternative assessment which can contain
either students’ best work or their
accomplishments (Nunes, 2004).
According to Yang (2003), the portfolio is a
compilation of students’ work, which
demonstrates how much effort they have
put into their work, their progress and
achievement in their learning, and their
reflection on the materials chosen for the
portfolio. The portfolio is beneficial not
only to students but also to teachers. As
Paulson, Paulson, and Meyer (1991) stated,
the portfolio acts as a bridge between
“instruction and assessment” (as cited in
Yang, p. 294).
A portfolio is a useful bridge because
teachers need to do more than just transmit
knowledge to students (Yang, 2003).
Teachers should show students how to
acquire “knowledge, skills, and strategies”
so that they can eventually turn into
autonomous and responsible learners for
their own learning (Yang, p. 293).
Therefore, the purpose of portfolios in an
ESL/EFL classroom is to increase the level
of students’ motivation and to give them a
sense of accomplishment and ownership in
their own learning (Crosby, 1997). I agree
with Yang’s comment on the role of a
language teacher in the students’ language
learning process. Unfortunately, it is not an
easy task to achieve this goal when teachers
are not fully supported by their
administrators. Administrators have to
understand the advantages of using the
portfolio and work with teachers hand in
hand to implement the portfolio into the
classroom. According to Routman (1991),
when teachers feel that using the portfolio
in their classrooms will add too much to
their workload, they will reject the idea of
using it, or they will wind up collecting all
the work from students without actually
using it meaningfully (as cited in Newman,
Smolen, & Lee, 1995). Because teachers are
frustrated with extra responsibilities, this
can impact the effectiveness of the
portfolio. As a consequence, teachers will
not make any essential changes or put in
too much effort to the implementation of
the portfolio, and they will not show their
students the critical techniques to become
autonomous and responsible for their own
learning as well (Newman, Smolen, & Lee).
The administrations can assist teachers by
providing rewards for their time and efforts
in using portfolio assessment.
Contents and Procedures of the
Portfolio
For the contents of the portfolio, there is
not necessarily a set of fixed components to
be included. The decision on the
components of the portfolio can be made
by the teachers, the students, or through an
agreement between teachers and students.
As a general guidelines, Crockett (1998, as
cited in Nunes, 2004) suggested five
different groups of materials that may be
included in the portfolio of students: a)
samples that are considered class
assignment requirements; b) “processed
samples” that were “previously graded by
the teacher”; c) “revisions of student work”
that are “graded and then revised, edited,
and rewritten”; d) reflections that are
associated with the “processed samples,”
and these reflections give students
opportunities to identity their own strengths
and weaknesses; e) “portfolio projects” that
include work mainly designed for students
to put into their portfolios (p. 1). As a

27
matter of fact, the portfolios could also
include materials that have special meaning
for the students in the process of learning,
such as newspaper articles, pictures, and
articles or pictures from magazines (Nunes).
No matter what is in the portfolio, teachers
have to communicate the contents of the
portfolio clearly to students in the
beginning of the course to avoid confusion
and frustration. At the same time, teachers
have to be sensitive to students’
adjustments to the idea of the portfolio.
Nunes’ (2004) study suggested that the first
samples collected from the students showed
that they did not understand the objectives
of doing reflections, and this might be
because these students were not “used to
thinking about their learning” (p. 2).
Therefore, teachers need to introduce the
use of portfolios and the materials to be put
in the portfolio step by step and should
expect some confusion from students at the
very beginning.
After setting the contents of the
portfolio, a schedule should be arranged to
implement its use in the curriculum.
Newman, Smolen, & Lee (1995) suggested
the steps we can use to implement an
effective and efficient portfolio
management system in the classroom.
Their research results showed that the
system has been successful in helping ESL
students become actively involved in
planning, assessing, and reflecting upon
their own learning. Therefore, I would like
to use this particular approach to show the
ways we can implement portfolios into an
ESL classroom. The following procedures
are described in detail in Newman, Smolen,
and Lee (1995). First, every student had a
working portfolio, and four different kinds
of information were included in this
working portfolio: “teacher collected
material, student collected material, student
management tools, and goal cards” (p. 12).
In order to allow students to retrieve the
information in the working portfolio easily,
it was kept in a file box. For the “teacher
colleted material” folder, formal and
informal assessments were included, and
they were collected several times by the
teacher during the year (p. 13). In addition,
the materials in the teacher folder can
include “report cards, progress reports,
cloze tests, student interviews, story
retelling information, reading attitude
inventories, and writing surveys,” (i.e., “any
material that might be useful”) to
communicate with the students’ parents (p.
13). The “student collected material” folder
had all the completed work from the
students throughout the year (p. 13).
Students were asked to date their ESL work
in the folder every day. Student’s work in
this folder might contain “spelling tests,
handouts, writing drafts, published writing,
homework, and some writing pieces that
were completed outside of the class” (p.
13). However, the “students’ Writing
Notebooks, Reading Logs, and Dialogue
Journals” were not filed in this folder
because they were used on a daily basis (p.
13). The “student management tools”
folder had all the management tools to help
students organize their work (p. 13).
Students placed their “Friday Progress
Reports, Time Management Sheets, and
Learning Log entries” in it (p. 13). The
weekly Goal Cards were the last thing
students had to put in the “working
portfolio” weekly (p. 13). These Goal
Cards were handed back to students, and
they put them in their working portfolio.
After this, another portfolio was developed,
called a “showcase” portfolio (p. 14). Any
materials which students regarded as
demonstrations of their personal growth
and academic achievement were put in a
three-ring notebook on a weekly basis.
Indeed, this showcase portfolio was
considered a crucial feature of students’
learning. This showcase portfolio
recognized, assessed, and revealed students’
learning progress. It also helped students to
build more “realistic goals” and retain a
rationale for their own learning (p. 14).
Students had to explain why they selected
what they selected for their showcase
portfolio. In addition, students would
receive peer feedback on the materials they
chose for their showcase, and the teacher
also selected materials they considered good
examples of students’ work. Thus, this
procedure of implementing portfolio

28
assessment places a high demand of time
and energy from both students and
teachers.
Evaluating Portfolio Assessment
According to Yang (2003), there are seven
differences between traditional and
portfolio assessment. First, traditional
assessment can only assess students in
certain skill areas while portfolio assessment
assesses students in a broader range of skill
areas. Second, traditional assessment is
more teacher-centered compared to
portfolio assessment. Third, traditional
assessment does not take individual
differences into consideration like portfolio
assessment does. Fourth, the teacher is
mostly the only person to do the evaluation
in traditional assessment while the portfolio
includes students, teachers, and peers in the
process of evaluation. Fifth, traditional
assessment does not consist of self-
evaluation while self-evaluation is one of
the main learning aims in portfolio
assessment. Sixth, traditional assessment
focuses on the products alone while
portfolio assessment focuses on students’
“improvement, effort, and achievement” (p.
295). The last but not least advantage is
that the areas of “learning, assessment, and
instruction” are treated separately in
traditional assessment while the connection
of “learning, assessment, and instruction” in
portfolio assessment is significant (p. 295).
Portfolio assessment has several
important strengths. In writing assessment,
portfolio assessment was found to be more
suitable than the timed writing assessment
(Song & August, 2002). According to Johns
(1991) and Thompson (1990), it was more
difficult to assess ESL students’ writing
abilities than native speakers’ in timed
writing assessment (as cited in Song &
August). Song and August suggested that
one of the main reasons for this was the
limited amount of time: Having a set time
during a writing test, non-native speakers
could not focus on the skills needed for
writing in a second language and on
culturally related issues in the process of
writing at the same time. As a result, using
portfolio assessment can measure ESL
students’ writing ability in a wider spectrum
(Hamp-Lyons & Condon, 2000, as cited in
Song & August). Another strength of
portfolio assessment is the power to adjust
the criteria of the assessment based on
individual differences (Crosby, 1997).
Though students have the same goals and
objectives in the language classroom, their
levels of performance can be varied, and
teachers will be able to see these differences
thanks to the use of portfolio assessment
(Crosby). Also according to Crosby, the
third main strength is the emphasis of
strengths rather than weaknesses in
portfolio assessment. This concept is very
important in the learning process because
students may feel discouraged and not
motivated if the emphasis of the assessment
is focused on their weaknesses only.
Overall, using portfolio assessment provides
students opportunities to “value their
work,” increase their “learning and
autonomy,” “reflect on their performance,”
“take responsibility for their learning” and
learn how to “think holistically” (Yang,
2003, p. 295).
While there are numerous strengths in
portfolio assessment, there are weaknesses
as well. First of all, assessing writing by
using portfolio assessment demands a lot of
work and time from instructors (Song &
August, 2002). A look at the portfolio
procedure illustrates the demands of this
assessment tool. However, teachers’
cumulative experiences of using the
portfolio and the knowledge of traditional
assessment can help with the
implementation of portfolio assessment
into traditional assessment. More
importantly, the reliability of the portfolio
assessment is greatly debatable: Without a
quantitative measure, it is difficult for
teachers to score students’ work
consistently because students’ work is not
graded based on right or wrong answers,
and there is an increase of subjectivity (Song
& August, 2002). On the other hand,
students’ work is graded quantitatively in
the traditional assessment, in which “the
standards are determined by cut-off scores”
(Crosby, 1997, p. 2).

29
Electronic portfolio (e-portfolio)
More recently, there has been increased
attention paid to e-portfolios as a more
economical and dynamic alternative to
paper portfolios. What is the difference
between the traditional and the e-portfolio?
The principle of the e-portfolio is similar to
the traditional portfolio. The main
difference is the way students’ work is
collected and compiled. When the e-
portfolio is employed, students’ work is
collected and made accessible on the World
Wide Web or simply a CD-ROM, and
multimedia can be used, such as the
“hypermedia programs, databases,
spreadsheets, and word-processing
software, as well as CD-ROMs and the
Web” (Kahtani, 1999, p. 262).
Furthermore, information in the e-portfolio
can be presented in “graphics, videos,
sounds, images, text, or any other
multimedia format” (Kahtani, p. 262).
Kahtani (1999, pp. 263-265) goes into
detail to describe how e-portfolios can be
implemented in a writing class. Besides
saving students’ writing assignments in an
electronic format and placing them on the
Web, students can be asked to explore the
use of hypertext to reinforce the contents of
their writing assignments. Another part of
the e-portfolio content is the “peer
response forms” where students respond to
their peers’ writing directly (p. 264). This
response form can be prompted by
questions, such as those suggested by
Kahtani (p. 264) “What is the strongest part
of this writing?” (p. 264) “What are your
suggestions for revision?” (p. 264) “What
questions do you have for the author?” (p.
264). The third possible part of the e-
portfolio consists of “teachers’ comments
and feedback” (p. 264). Reading journals
are also included in the e-portfolio, where
students place their weekly written journals
based on the readings they perform for the
week. Students can also insert a hypertext
link to the materials they have read. Any
other materials can be placed under the
“miscellaneous” part, which is mostly
information related to students’ learning (p.
265) . For each entry, students need to
write a short paragraph explaining why they
chose the information they put in this
miscellaneous session. I find this approach
to be effective to develop students’
creativity.
In contrast to the contents of a
writing class, video technology can be used
in a conversation class, as described in detail
by Master (1998, pp. 132-133). The main
contents of the e-portfolio in this class
include an “oral dialogue journal, tapes of a
class discussion,” a taped outside-of-class
interview, and tapes of a “formal
presentation” that were presented in class
(p. 132). The “oral dialogue journal” plays a
crucial part in the e-portfolio for this
conversation class because it helps students
overcome the concerns that they do not
have anything to say in a conversation or
they cannot be understood by people who
listen to them (p. 132). To do the oral
dialogue journaling, students choose a topic
of their interest and talk about it in front of
the video camera. After that, the teacher
responds to the students on the tape while
listening to students’ talk. By doing so, the
teacher can lower students’ anxiety level
when they have to speak in English or listen
to an English speaker in the real world. I
think that video technology can provide
students the opportunity to self-monitor
their own learning and progress.
The major advantage of using e-
portfolio is its economical aspect. Kahtani
(1999, pp. 262-263) provides perhaps the
most comprehensive list of e-portfolio
advantages, which includes the following.
First, the traditional portfolio takes a lot of
paper and space while the e-portfolio avoids
both of these problems. Another advantage
is the possibility of helping teachers with
their lesson planning. When teachers do
their planning for the academic year, they
can download students’ portfolios on the
Web. This can help teachers get to know
the students earlier and plan their lessons
according to the background and
proficiency levels of students. Motivation
plays an important role in the advantages
that have just been mentioned. Placing
students’ work on the Web can definitely
motivate students to learn. As Frizler
(1995) suggested, students wrote better

30
when they realized that there was a broader
audience (as cited in Kahtani). After all,
students can have access to the portfolio
whenever they want. They can upgrade or
update the information without having to
redo the whole portfolio. In my view, the e-
portfolio will eventually replace the
traditional paper portfolio.
However, Kahtani (1999) also pointed
out several drawbacks of e-portfolios. An
important drawback is the limitation to
students who are illiterate in technology.
Students also need to have the right
equipment and software in order to work
on the e-portfolio. Moreover, students may
spend a lot of time focusing on the design
rather than on the content of the portfolio.
I believe that these limitations can be
overcome by clarifying the purpose of
doing the portfolio to students and
providing extra instructions to students who
are not familiar with technology.
Conclusion
All in all, with the information on the basic
concepts as well as the strengths and
weaknesses of portfolio assessment, I
consider the integration of this form of
assessment in an ESL classroom to be more
appropriate than trying to replace existing
forms of assessment completely. As a
language teacher, it is important to know
the elements of both traditional and
alternative assessment. We need to have
options on what kind of assessment tool we
would like to use based on the needs of our
students. We cannot dismiss the
significance of the traditional assessment.
In fact, portfolio assessment can enhance
traditional assessment. For instance, the
assessment of a non-native speaker’s writing
ability with merely one piece of writing can
be supplemented by the numerous drafts
and other related writing assignments that
are collected in the student’s portfolio.
Before we have further research results
showing the reliability and validity of
portfolio assessment, we need to be aware
of its strengths and weaknesses. The most
important consideration is to involve
students in their learning and to help them
to learn through assessment. There will
always be strengths and weaknesses of all
kinds of assessments, and a perfect model
does not exist. Nonetheless, if teachers
work with their own experiences and review
the existing literature on portfolio research,
they may be able to design a better
assessment tool, even when it may be a
mixed form of assessment.
References
Crosby, C. (1997, August). Portfolio
assessment in the Korean ESL writing
classroom. Thai TESOL Bulletin, 10(2).
Retrieved November 13, 2004, from
http://www.thaitesol.org/bulletin/100
2/100204.html
Kahtani, S. A. (1999). Electronic portfolios
in ESL writing: An alternative
approach. Computer Assisted Language
Learning, 12(3), pp. 261-268. Retrieved
January 30, 2006, from (EBSCO) ERIC
database (EJ595149).
Master, E. (1998). Use of portfolios in ESL
conversation classes. Retrieved January 30,
2006, from Education Full Text
(Wilson).
Newman, C., Smolen, L, & Lee, D. J.
(1995). Implementation of portfolios in an
ESL classroom. Retrieved December 7,
2005, from (EBSCO) ERIC database
(ED384645).
Nunes, A. (2004, October). Portfolios in
the EFL classroom: Disclosing an
informed practice. ELT Journal, 58(4),
327-35. Retrieved December 6, 2005,
from Education Full Text (Wilson).
Song, B., & August, B. (2002). Using
portfolios to assess the writing of ESL
students: a powerful alternative? Journal
of Second Language Writing, 11, 49-72.
Yang, N. D. (2003). Integrating portfolios
into learning strategy-based instruction
for EFL college students. IRAL, 41(4),
293-317. Retrieved December 7, 2005,
from Education Full Text (Wilson).

Lau portfolio a16709

More Related Content

Lau portfolio a16709