NGHIÊN CỨU VỀ TÍNH THỰC TIỄN CỦA HỒ SƠ BÀI VIẾT DÀNH CHO SINH VIÊN NĂM 2, TỔ CHẤT LƯỢNG CAO, KHOA TIẾNG ANH SƯ PHẠM, ĐẠI HỌC NGOẠI NGỮ, ĐẠI HỌC QUỐC GIA HÀ NỘI

Authenticity is one of the important qualities making portfolios a powerful method of writing assessment. As one of the pioneers in foreign language education, FastTrack division at FELTE, ULIS (University of Languages and International Study) has made attempt to improve writing assessment standard by including portfolios in the writing courses. To meet the goal of this activity, it is, therefore, necessary that authenticity goes hand in hand with such method. Nevertheless, that how the quality is evaluated is unspecified. To tackle this problem, the present study aims at building a framework for authentic writing portfolios, then applying that framework to investigate the authenticity of the writing portfolios for the second year fasttrack students at ULIS, VNU. Four phases with three qualitative methods were employed for wellrounded results. The findings indicated that the framework for authentic writing portfolios should include five main dimensions: Tasks, goals, context, assessment criteria, and roles of assessors. With regard to the writing portfolios for the second year fasttrack students at ULIS, VNU, the authenticity was demonstrated to a certain extent, yet some improvements were still needed. The study hopefully will benefit researchers and teachers who are interested in the same topic. Key Words: Language assessment, authenticity, writing competence, and writing portfolios.

VIETNAM NATIONAL UNIVERSITY, HANOI

University of Languages and International Studies

FACULTY OF ENGLISH LANGUAGE TEACHER EDUCATION

GRADUATION PAPER

AN INVESTIGATION INTO THE AUTHENTICITY OF

FAST-TRACK STUDENTS IN THE SECOND

SEMESTER AT FELTE, ULIS, VNU

Supervisor: Duong Thu Mai, PhD.

Student: Nguyen Dieu HongCourse: QH2010.F1.E2

Ha Noi, May 2014

ĐẠI HỌC QUỐC GIA HÀ NỘI TRƯỜNG ĐẠI HỌC NGOẠI NGỮKHOA TIẾNG ANH SƯ PHẠM

KHOÁ LUẬN TỐT NGHIỆP

NGHIÊN CỨU VỀ TÍNH THỰC TIỄN CỦA HỒ SƠ BÀI VIẾT DÀNH CHO SINH VIÊN NĂM 2, TỔ CHẤT LƯỢNG CAO, KHOA TIẾNG ANH SƯ PHẠM, ĐẠI HỌC NGOẠI

NGỮ, ĐẠI HỌC QUỐC GIA HÀ NỘI

Giáo viên hướng dẫn: Tiến sĩ Dương Thu Mai.

Sinh viên: Nguyễn Diệu Hồng

Khoá: QH2010.F1.E2

HÀ NỘI – THÁNG 5 NĂM 2014

I hereby state that I: Nguyen Dieu Hong, QH2010.E2, being a candidate for the degree of Bachelor of Arts (TEFL) accept the requirements of the College relating to the retention and use of Bachelor’s Graduation Paper deposited

in the library.

In terms of these conditions, I agree that the origin of my paper deposited in the library should be accessible for the purposes of study and research, in accordance with the normal conditions established by the librarian for the care, loan or reproduction of the paper.

Signature

May, 2014

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

To complete this graduation paper, I would like to express my gratitude to:

 My supervisor, Dr Duong Thu Mai as I have always been and will always bethankful to her I highly appreciate her for the constant, unfailing supportduring my study While providing me with critical, constructive commentsshe has respected my autonomy in the way I chose the topic Although rarelydid I receive her words of encouragement she has always been there for me atthe worst moments of my research journey

 Mrs Dinh Hai Yen, who provided me with endless support during my datacollection process

 Mr Nguyen Chi Duc for his helpfulness, kindness and inspiration

 All of my participants who have always been the decisive factors in thecompletion of this paper

 My parents for their unconditional love and support

 My younger brother and my best friends, who have always stood by my side,believed in me and raised me up whenever I lost faith in myself

Without all their support and cooperation, this thesis would not have been possible

ABSTRACT

Authenticity is one of the important qualities making portfolios a powerfulmethod of writing assessment As one of the pioneers in foreign languageeducation, Fast-Track division at FELTE, ULIS (University of Languages andInternational Study) has made attempt to improve writing assessment standard byincluding portfolios in the writing courses To meet the goal of this activity, it is,therefore, necessary that authenticity goes hand in hand with such method.Nevertheless, that how the quality is evaluated is unspecified To tackle thisproblem, the present study aims at building a framework for authentic writingportfolios, then applying that framework to investigate the authenticity of thewriting portfolios for the second- year fast-track students at ULIS, VNU Fourphases with three qualitative methods were employed for well-rounded results Thefindings indicated that the framework for authentic writing portfolios shouldinclude five main dimensions: Tasks, goals, context, assessment criteria, and roles

of assessors With regard to the writing portfolios for the second- year fast-trackstudents at ULIS, VNU, the authenticity was demonstrated to a certain extent, yetsome improvements were still needed The study hopefully will benefit researchersand teachers who are interested in the same topic

Key Words: Language assessment, authenticity, writing competence, and writing portfolios

TABLE OF CONTENTS

ACCEPTANCE i

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS i

ABSTRACT ii

CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION 1

1.1 STATEMENT OF RESEARCH PROBLEM AND RATIONALE FOR THE STUDY .1

1.2 AIMS AND OBJECTIVES OF THE STUDY 3

1.3 SCOPE OF THE STUDY 4

1.4 SIGNIFICANCE 4

1.5 METHODS OF THE STUDY 4

1.6 AN OVERVIEW OF THE REST OF THE PAPER 5

CHAPTER 2: LANGUAGE ASSESSMENT, AUTHENTICITY AND WRITING PORTFOLIO 7

2.1 LANGUAGE ASSESSMENT 7

2.1.1 Key Concepts 7

2.1.1.1 Assessment 7

2.1.1.2 Test 8

2.1.1.3 Measurement 8

2.1.1.4 Evaluation 9

2.1.2 A Brief Sketch of Language Assessment History and Modern language Assessment Trends 9

2.2 AUTHENTICITY IN LANGUAGE ASSESSMENT 11

2.2.1 Authenticity in Language Education 11

2.2.2 Authenticity in Language Assessment 12

2.3 WRITING PORTFOLIOS 16

2.3.1 Writing 16

2.3.1.1 Definition of writing and writing competence 16

2.3.1.2 Writing assessment methods 18

2.3.2 Writing Portfolios 19

2.3.2.1 Definition of writing portfolios 19

2.3.2.2 Advantages of writing portfolios 21

2.2.3.3 Issues in writing portfolio implementation 22

2.3 TOWARD A FRAMEWORK TO ASSESS WRITING PORTFOLIO AUTHENTICITY 24

2.3.1 Authentic Instruction 24

2.3.1.1 Authentic learning tasks 24

2.3.1.2 Authentic physical context 28

2.3.1.3 Authentic social context 29

2.3.1.4 Authentic learning goals 30

2.3.2 Authentic Assessment 30

2.3.2.1 Authentic assessment tasks 30

2.3.2.2 Authentic assessment criteria 31

2.3.2.3 Authentic assessment methods 32

CHAPTER 3: RESEARCH METHODOLOGY 35

3.1 RESEARCH QUESTIONS AND DESIGN 35

3.2 RESEARCH METHODS 35

3.2.1 PHASE 1: Document Analysis 36

3.2.1.1 Instrument 37

3.2.1.2 Procedure of data collection 37

3.2.1.3 Data analysis 38

3.2.2 PHASE 2: Semi-structured Interview 1 39

3.2.2.1 Sampling 40

3.2.2.2 Instrument 41

3.2.2.3 Procedure of data collection 41

3.2.2.4 Data analysis 42

3.2.3 PHASE 3: Observation 43

3.2.3.1 Direct observation 43

3.2.3.2 Document observation 45

3.2.4 PHASE 4: Semi-structured Interview 2 45

3.2.4.1 Sampling 45

3.2.4.2 Instruments 46

3.2.4.3 Procedure of data collection 47

3.2.4.4 Data analysis 47

CHAPTER 4: FINDINGS 49

4.1 FINDINGS FROM DOCUMENT ANALYSIS 49

4.1.1 Framework for evaluating the Authenticity of Writing Portfolios 49

4.2 FINDINGS FROM SEMI-STRUCTURED INTERVIEW 1 51

4.2.1 The Completion and Preciseness of the Framework 51

4.2.1.1 Authentic learning tasks 51

4.2.1.2 Physical learning context and social learning context 53

4.2.1.3 Authentic learning goals 53

4.2.1.4 Authentic assessment tasks 54

4.2.1.5 Authentic assessing methods 54

4.2.1.6 Authentic marking criteria 55

4.2.1.7 Scale to evaluate authenticity 56

4.2.2 Practicality of the Framework 56

4.3 FINDINGS FROM OBSERVATION 57

4.3.1 Tasks 57

4.3.1.1 Student ownership 57 4.3.1.2 The complexity of the tasks in comparision with the students’ educational level .58

4.3.1.3 The support and scaffolding provided in the writing portfolios 61

4.3.2 Goals 61

4.3.2.1 Course Objectives 61

4.3.2.2 Goals of the writing portfolios 61

4.3.2.3 Learners’ career orientation and language proficiency (Section 4.3.1.2.2, chapter 4) .62

4.3.3 Contexts 62

4.3.3.1 Physical context 62

4.3.3.2 Social context 63

4.3.4 Assessment criteria 63

4.3.4.1 Criteria to evaluate each type of genres 63

4.3.4.2 Marking criteria for the writing portfolio as a whole 64

4.3.5 Roles of assessors 65

4.3.5.1 Teacher 65

4.3.5.2 Student 65

4.3.5.3 Peer 65

4.4 FINDINGS FROM SEMI-STRUCTURED INTERVIEWS 65

4.4.1 Tasks 66

4.4.1.1 Ownership of students 66

4.4.1.2 The resemblance between the tasks in writing portfolios and professional tasks 67

4.4.1.3 Support/scaffolding provided in the writing portfolio practice 68

4.4.2 Goals 69

4.4.2.1 The fulfillment of course objectives 69

4.4.2.2 The appropriateness to the learners’ language proficiency and learners’ career orientation 70

4.4.3 Contexts 71

4.4.3.1 Physical contexts 71

4.4.3.2 Social context 71

4.4.4 Assessment Criteria 72

4.4.4.1 Clear-cut and detailed criteria 72

4.4.4.2 The degree to which the students were informed about the criteria 72

4.4.5 Roles of assessors 73

4.4.5.1 Teacher 73

4.4.5.2 Peers 74

4.4.5.3 Students themselves 75

CHAPTER 5: DISCUSSION 76

5.1 FRAMEWORK FOR AUTHENTIC WRITING PORTFOLIOS 76

5.1.1 Tasks 76

5.1.2 Goals 78

5.1.3 Context and Assessment Criteria 79

5.1.4 Roles of Assessors 79

5.1.5 Framework evaluation 80

5.2 RECOMMENDATIONS TO IMPROVE THE AUTHENTICITY OF THE WRITING PORFOLIOS FOR THE SECOND YEAR FAST-TRACK STUDENTS AT ULIS-VNU81 CHAPTER 6: CONCLUSION 84

6.1 LIMITATIONS OF THE RESEARCH 84

6.2 SUGGESTIONS FOR FURTHER STUDIES 84

APPENDICES 86

REFERENCES 126

LISTS OF TABLES, FIGURES AND ABBREVIATIONS

Figure 1: Measurement, tests and evaluation (Bachman, 1990)

Figure 2: Authenticity (Bachman& Palmer, 1996)

Figure 3: Five-dimensional framework for authentic assessment

(Gulikers, Bastiaens & Kirschner, 2004)

Figure 4: Research procedure

Figure 5: Classification of authentic tasks (Brown & Menasche, 2005)

9 12 89

35 56

Figure 6: A framework for analyzing communicative tasks (Nunan, 1989)

Figure 7: Authenticity in Writing Portfolios

76 77

ABBREVIATIONS

EFL : English as a Foreign Language

ESL : English as a Second Language

FELTE : Faculty of English Language Teacher Education

VNU : Vietnam National University

ULIS : University of Languages and International Studies

Kroll (2001) has defined this view as follows:

The “process approach” serves today as an umbrella term for many types ofwriting courses What the term captures is the fact that student writersengage in their writing tasks through a cyclical approach rather than asingle-shot approach They are not expected to produce and submit completeand polished responses to their writing assignments without going throughstages of drafting and receiving feedback on their draft, be it from peers and/

or from the teacher, followed by revision of their evolving texts (p 220)

In other words, the progress of brainstorming ideas, drafting, reviewing andediting are essential in writing Consequently, it is more difficult to assess EFLstudents’ writing abilities than native speakers’ in timed writing assessment (John,1991) Conforming to this point, Song and August (2002) point out that a set timeduring a writing test does affect test takers’ simultaneous concentration on L2writing needed skills and culturally related issues in the process of writing Fromthis perspective, traditional timed testing seemed to be inadequate in writingassessment

The need for a supplementary assessment method leads to the born ofwriting portfolios While standardized tests are incapable of reflecting a completepicture of students’ needs and learning, writing portfolios are proved to be veryuseful Hamp-Lyons and Condon (2000) hold that “portfolio provide a broadermeasure of what students can do, and because they replace the timed writingcontext, which has long been claimed to be particularly discriminatory against non-native writers” (p 61) In addition, by applying portfolios, the student-centeredconcept of teaching will take priority over the traditional one (Lee, 2000)

Due to the crucial role of portfolios in teaching and learning writing, it ishardly surprising that many research topics have been conducted surrounding theseassessment method Some concentrate on the relationship between writingportfolios and learners “The Effects of portfolio assessment on Writing of EFLStudents” (Netzakatgoo, 2010) is a salient example The findings of that study areused to determine the effect of portfolio assessment on the final examination scores

of EFL students respecting writing skill Others, for instance “A qualitativeresearch on Portfolio Keeping in English as a Foreign Language Writing” (Aydin,2010), tend to deepen into the contributions of portfolios to the languagedevelopment of a specific group like pre-service teachers or Korean ESL students.The qualities of portfolios also receive much concern To illustrate, Hamp-Lyons &Condon (2000) believe that in writing portfolios both, reliability and validity arenecessary and must be taken into consideration Therefore, substantial studies havebeen carried out in this aspect, for example, Joan, Maryl and Eva (2010)

As mentioned above, a wide variety of topics regarding writing portfolioshave been chosen, but there are still some gaps It is held by some researchers thatportfolio assessment is one form of authentic assessment (Hart, 1994) However,Arter and Spandel (1992) point out one of the problems arising when usingportfolios as assessment devices is the possibility of lacking authenticity Althoughthere are controversial opinions surrounding this quality, little attention has beenpaid to it

In the Vietnamese context, the term “authenticity” of language assessment

in general and portfolios in particular is still new to a large number of teachers andlearners Even at ULIS, VNU (Vietnam National University, University ofLanguages and International Studyies) where EFL students need to build writingportfolios in English every year, hardly could readers find any official studies aboutthe authenticity of such assessment method It is, hence, necessary to produce moreresearch on that field Additionally, in the current semester (semester 2, 2013-2014), the 2nd year fast-track students at FELTE, ULIS, VNU has experienced anew type of writing portfolios of which course designers have high expectations.Owing to the fact that authenticity was of essence in writing portfolios (Estrem,2004), evaluating the authenticity of those portfolios might offer somecontributions to the development of the writing course All of the above mentioned

reasons have led to researcher’s decision on conducting a study entitled: “An investigation into the authenticity of the writing portfolios for the 2nd year Fast-track students in the second semester at FELTE, ULIS, VNU”

1.2 AIMS AND OBJECTIVES OF THE STUDY.

This study aimed at building a framework to evaluate authenticity in writingportfolios and then investigating the authenticity of the writing portfolios for thesecond- year fast-track students at ULIS, VNU based on that framework Thus, theresearch focuses on two questions:

- What aspects of the authenticity need to be demonstrated in writingportfolios?

- From the teacher perspective, which aspects of authenticity aredemonstrated in the writing portfolios for the 2nd year Fast-Track students

in the second semester at FELTE, ULIS, VNU?

1.3 SCOPE OF THE STUDY.

First, according to the course syllabus (Appendix 3 p.102), there were fivetypes of genre about academic writing included in the writing portfolios for the 2nd

year Fast-Track students in the second semester at FELTE, ULIS, VNU However,under time constraint, this research just focused on three main entries:argumentative essay, informative synthesis and argumentative synthesis

Second, owing to the time limit, the samples of the third phase-observationswere two second-year fast-track classes whose students majored in Englishlanguage education instead of all fast-track classes

Last but not least, there are numerous experts in language assessment field,yet only experts at ULIS, VNU were invited to join the two semi-structuredinterview phases since the favorable conditions as well as their willingness to helpwith the data collection

1.4 SIGNIFICANCE

Overall, being the first study to develop a framework for authentic writingportfolios in Vietnam, this research could be considerably helpful for Vietnameseteachers as well as researchers working on related studies

With regard to ULIS context, this study, once completed, hopefully wouldprovide the teachers and the course designers of the Fast-track program withvaluable information about the authenticity in the implemented writing portfolios

so that adjustments might be made to improve the quality of this assessmentmethod

Besides, second or foreign language researchers who have special interest inqualities of assessment, especially authenticity could certainly base on this research

to find reliable and useful materials for their related studies in the future

1.5 METHODS OF THE STUDY

A combination of four phases with three qualitative methods was employed

in the process of data collection Specifically, at the first place, document analysiswas utilized to build the first version of the framework for the authenticity inwriting portfolios The second phase, semi-structured interview 1 targeted at

verifying that drafted framework through experts in language assessment.Observation was applied to examine the quality of the final framework as well as tocollect data for the next phase Semi-structured interview 2 enabled the researcher

to answer the second research question It is important to note that these phaseswere carried out in this order

The language used in the interviews was both Vietnamese and English tomake the respondents most comfortable to express their ideas All the interviewswere recorded with the interviewees’ acceptance Notes were prepared as well.During the process of observation, the researcher recorded and took notes allneeded information from the writing lessons (for example, appendix 3, p 95)

1.6 AN OVERVIEW OF THE REST OF THE PAPER

The rest of the paper includes five chapters as follows:

Chapter 2 (Language Assessment, Authenticity and Writing Portfolios)

provides the background of the study including key concepts and the discussions ofthe related studies This is also the instrument of the first research method-document analysis

Chapter 3 (Research Methodology) describes the methods and instruments

of the study, as well as the procedure employed to carry out the research

Chapter 4 (Findings) presents all collected data.

Chapter 5 (Discussion and Implication) analyzes and summarizes major

findings The author’s suggestions to resolve remaining problems related toauthenticity in the writing portfolios for the Fast-track students were given as well

Chapter 6 (Conclusion) summarizes the main issues discussed in the paper,

the limitations of the research as well as some suggestions for further studies.Following this chapter are the References and Appendices

In this chapter, the researcher has elaborated on these following points: (1) Statement and rationale of the study

(2) Aims of the study

(3) Scope of the study

(4) Methods of the study

(5) An overview of the rest of the paper

Summary

The paper has provided the rationale for the study by stressing the role of authenticity in writing portfolios as well as disclosing the research gap The framework of the paper has also been explained through the two research questions and clearly defined scope These elaborations have not only justified the major contents and structure of the study but will also work as the guidelines for the rest of the paper

CHAPTER 2: LANGUAGE ASSESSMENT, AUTHENTICITY

AND WRITING PORTFOLIO

Shedding light on the literature of the study, the second chapter includes four main parts First, a brief review of the key concepts in language assessment is provided In the next two parts, a detailed presentation of the theoretical background respecting writing portfolios and authenticity in language assessment

is mentioned Finally, the in-depth analysis toward a framework to assess authenticity in writing portfolios lays the solid foundation for the aims of this research paper

2.1 LANGUAGE ASSESSMENT

2.1.1 Key Concepts

The terms “assessment”, “measurement”, “test” and “evaluation” are oftenused interchangeably in general public (Nitko, 2001) To illustrate, when talkingabout assessing students’ language proficiency, people normally refer to ‘test’.Each term, in fact, has distinctive characteristics It is necessary to understand thoseterms properly before further studies regarding language assessment are conducted

2.1.1.1 Assessment

According to Nitko (2001), assessment is:

A broad term defined as a process for obtaining information that is used for making decisions about students, curricula and programs [….] When we say we are “assessing a student’s competence”, we mean we are collecting information to help us decide the degree to which the student has achieved the meaning targets (p 4)

He likewise emphasizes that there are numerous assessment techniquesserving the purpose of collecting such above-mentioned information, for examplepaper-and-pencil tests, oral questioning, students’ homework performance and so

on Besides, assessment provides teachers with data about their own teaching andassists students in understanding their own learning progress (Duncan & Dunn,1989)

2.1.1.2 Test

The notion of test is quite similar to the one of assessment However, theyare not synonymous terms Tests “ occur at identifiable times in a curriculum whenlearners master all their faculties to offer peak performance, knowing that theirresponses are being measured and evaluated, while assessment is an ongoingprocess that encompasses a much wider domain” (Brown, 2010, p 4) In otherwords, all tests are assessment but not all assessments are tests

As stated by Carroll (1968), “a psychological or educational test is aprocedure designed to elicit certain behavior from which one can make inferencesabout certain characteristics of an individual” (p 6) Based on this definition,Bachman (1990) considers a test a measurement instrument created to implementthe elicitation of an individual’s behavior regarding a specific sample Similarly,Nitko (2001) defines a test “as an instrument or systematic procedure for observingand describing one or more characteristics of a student using either a numericalscale or classification scheme” (p 5) In this study, for the sake of updatedinformation, Nitko’s definition of test is adopted

2.1.1.4 Evaluation

Weiss (1972) (as cited in Bachman, 1990) regarded evaluation as “thesystematic gathering of information for the purpose of making decisions” (p 22)

To make it clearer, Bachman (1990) has represented the relationship amongmeasurement, tests, and evaluation in Figure 1 below:

Figure 1: Measurement, tests and evaluation (Bachman, 1990)

According to the figure, besides testing, there exist many other methods forevaluation Teachers can still evaluate learners’ competency without using tests.This fact is clearly demonstrated throughout educational assessment history andespecially in the modern language assessment trends presented in the next section

2.1.2 A Brief Sketch of Language Assessment History and Modern language Assessment Trends.

As stated by Brown (2007), language assessment trends and practices havefollowed the shifting sands of teaching methodology During the first-half of thenineteenth century, assessment mainly based on the behaviorist views of cognitivedevelopment (Hancock, 1994) In that behaviorism era, “special attention was paid

to contrastive analysis, and testing focused on specific language elements such asphonological, grammatical, and lexical contrasts between two languages” (Brown,

2007, p 8) For instance, to assess the students’ written proficiency, teachers mightask students to translate a paragraph from their mother tongues to the targetedlanguage From 1970s, communicative theories brought a new view to languageassessment: “The whole of the communicative event was considerably greater than

the sum of its linguistic elements” (Clark, 1983, p 432) Teachers and educatorsstarted to pose questions respecting validity and the degree to which an assessinginstrument stimulates real-world interaction Archbald and Newmann (1988)declare “traditional tests have been criticized for neglecting the kind of competenceneeded for dealing successfully with various situations beyond school” (Archbald

& Newmann, p.21) Bachman (1990) also stressed that the relationship between thelanguage required in test tasks and the one used in everyday life is a matter ofconcern Thus, although paper-and-pencil tests are easy to grade, it cannot bedenied that they provide little evidence of what a language learner can actually dowith the language

In the early 1990s, in a culture of rebellion against the notion that traditionaltests were versatile tools to measure all people and all skills, a novel conceptlabeled “alternative assessment” emerged It assembles “additional measures ofstudents- portfolios, journals, observations, self-assessments, peer-assessments, andthe like in an effort to triangulate data about students” (Brown, 2010, p 251).Nowadays, in language courses and programs throughout the world, educators aredealing with the more student-centered agenda (Alderson, 2002) Consequently,alternative assessments have become more and more popular and hold “ethicalpotential” (Lynch, 2001, p 228) in the promotion of fairness and the balance ofpower relationships in the classroom Nevertheless, some issues related to differenttypes of alternative assessments have arisen According to Brown (2010),practicality and reliability of language assessment tend to be lower To illustrate,one of the main problems of writing portfolios (a method of alternativesassessment) is “low inter-rater reliability, consistency of scores because teachersare not used to the concept of assessment” (Nezakatgoo, 2010, p.32) In addition,though alternative assessment is strongly believed to provide a wider place for

“authenticity”, it is interesting to note that authenticity is also a matter of concern

Back to the early 1990s, Bachman and Palmer (1996) included

“authenticity” into the qualities of a good test due to two reasons First, it connects

the test task to the domain of generalization; and second, it may enable test takers

to perform at their best However, the authentic label is often placed on differenttypes of alternative assessments such as performance-based assessment orportfolios without regard to whether the tasks are similar to those valued outsidethe classroom (Frey B, 2012) From the aforementioned analysis, there is littledoubt that in this day and age, authenticity is one of the special considerations inlanguage assessment Nevertheless, what is “authenticity”? And which are thecriteria used to evaluate such quality? Further discussion on this concept will beheld in the next part

2.2 AUTHENTICITY IN LANGUAGE ASSESSMENT

2.2.1 Authenticity in Language Education

Some authors and researchers use the term “authenticity” in languageeducation as a synonym of reality; however, the notion, in fact, encompasses muchmore than that

Initially, authenticity is regarded as a quality helping classroom textsconnect students to the real world (Joy, 2011) Not only do such texts reflect realitybut they also enhance students’ motivation to communicate without self-consciousness (Gatbonton & Gu, 1994) The opponents of this view argue that theconcern of a teaching-learning situation is not merely getting students to useoriginal text but enabling students to use language in real context as well.Moreover, it is probably inaccurate to assume that the nature of a text does notchange when it is taken out of the original context Wallace (1992) declares thatwhen real-life materials are “brought into classrooms for pedagogic purposes theyhave, arguably, lost authenticity” (p 79) Therefore, authentic texts cannot ensurethe real language use solely by itself Clark (1989) also claims: “the notion ofauthenticity has become increasingly related to specific learner needs and lessconcerned with the authentic nature of the input materials themselves” (p 73)

To conclude, it is obvious that although authenticity is the term frequentlyused in language education, defining it still causes controversies As reported byJoy (2011), “the attempts made to define authenticity, on the one hand, havedeepened its complexity, and have widened its scope, on the other hand” (p 10).Additionally, language education is a broad field Therefore, up to now, no officialdefinition for the term “authenticity” has been presented Even in a narroweraspect-language assessment, “authenticity” is likewise a contentious issue

2.2.2 Authenticity in Language Assessment.

Since the early 90’s, authenticity in language assessment has captured theattention of numerous teachers, educators, theorists and researchers throughout theworld There have been hundreds of books as well as journal articles written aboutsuch complex topic The literature on how authenticity should be understood anddemonstrated in language assessment is, hence, extensive, too Within the limitedscope of this research, only three magnificent views are expounded

Concerning the domain of test, Bachman and Palmer (1996) considerauthenticity “the degree of correspondence of the characteristics of a givenlanguage test task to the features of a TLU (target language use) task” (p.23) (figure2)

Authenticity

Figure 2: Authenticity (Bachman& Palmer, 1996)

Moreover, they develop a framework (Table 1-Appendix 1) as the basis fortest designers to design an authentic test task Their framework embodies a set offive aspects of test authenticity: setting, test rubric, input, expected response, andrelationship between input and response

Characteristics of the TLU task

Characteristics of the test task

First of all, “setting” consists of three physical circumstances “under whicheither language use or testing takes place” (Bachman & Palmer, 1996, p 48) Theyinclude the physical settings, participants, and time of tasks Second, with regards

to test rubric, it contains “those characteristics of the test that provide the structurefor a particular test tasks and that indicate how test takers are to proceed inaccomplishing the tasks” (p 50) The characteristics of rubrics include: thestructure of the test, instructions, the duration of the test and how the language will

be evaluated or scored Third, input refers to material involved in a given test task

or TLU task, “which test takers or language users are expected to process in someways and to which they are expected to respond” (p 52) Finally, in a test, “theexpected response consists of language use or, perhaps, the physical response weare attempting to elicit by the way the instructions have been written, the taskdesigned and by the kind of input provided” (p 53)

There is no denying that Bachman and Palmer (1996) have built a detailedframework During the process of explanation, those two authors not only base ontheir extensive pedagogic experience but also mention various opinions fromprestigious researchers like Caroll (1993) to support their assertions This isprobably the reason why many testing experts, for example Purpura (2004), haveutilized that framework as a solid ground for their studies Nevertheless, Bachmanand Palmer particularly focus on test, a form of summative assessment whilefeatures of tests, for instance time or purpose, are not always as same as those ofother assessment methods Consequently, that framework may not be suitable forlanguage assessment tasks in general

The next view is stated by Nitko (2001) According to Nitko, “realistic” and

“meaningful” are the two terms often used as talking about authentic assessment.Furthermore, to craft authenticity, assessment designers should take the followingfeatures into account:

1 Emphasize applications: assessing whether a student can use hisknowledge in addition to assessing what the students knows

2 Focus on direct assessment: Assess the stated learning target directly incontrast to indirect assessment

3 Use realistic problems: Frame the tasks in a highly realistic way so thatthe students can recognize them as a part of everyday life

4 Encourage open-ended thinking: frame the tasks to encourage more thanone correct answer, more than one way of expressing the answer, groups ofstudents working together, and taking a relatively long time to complete (e.g,several days, weeks, months) (p 245)

Compared with Bachman and Palmer (1996), Nitko’s opinion about

“authenticity” seems to be broader The author does not only pay attention to testbut also language assessment in general Nonetheless, his own conception is merelygiven without a justification or further supporting details Thus, from researcher’sperspective, Nitko’s arguments of authenticity seem insufficiently persuasive

Gulikers, Bastiaens and Kirschner (2004) also propose another definition ofauthentic assessment To them, an assessment is authentic if it requires task takers

to “use the same competences, or combinations of knowledge, skills, and attitudes,that they need to apply in the criterion situation in professional life” (p 69) Basing

on such notion, the researchers build a five-dimensional framework for authenticassessment (Figure 3- Appendix 1, p 86) As its name implies, that frameworkconcludes five aspects

The first one is “task” which “resembles the criterion task with respect to theintegration of knowledge, skills, and attitudes, its complexity and its ownership” (p

71) Moreover, authentic task should be seen as relevant and meaningful bydifferent people Besides, physical context is mentioned as one dimension withfidelity; kind and amount of available resources, and time listed as three branches.

In consonance with Resnick’s view of the relationship between social system andlearning-out-of-school activities, Gulikers, Bastiaens and Kirschner (2004)comprise “social context” in their framework The fourth and the fifth one are

“assessment result” and “criteria” used to assess such result is the final dimension

While formulating their argumentation, Gulikers, Bastiaens and Kirschner(2004) conducted a systematic literature review Different viewpoints are discussedcritically before the conclusion is stated Additionally, the three authors carried out

an empirical research with students and teachers from a nursing college in order toexamine whether such dimensions are complete or not An electronic group supportsystem (GSS) at the Open University of the Netherlands was used as research tool.According to the collected results, their framework is adequate However, thatframework is initially developed to shed light on the concept of authenticity ingeneral There is no evidence that it can work appropriately in language educationfield in particular

In a nutshell, different viewpoints of authenticity exist, but there are stillsome common features With regard to the definition of authenticity in languageassessment, all the three viewpoints refer to the characteristic of “realistic” and

“meaningful” In this research, the notion that authenticity is the quality resemblingreal-life situation and addressing learners’ needs in further professional life isadopted However, the real professional context, which is highly performancebased, is a complicated mixture of ill-defined problems, multiple uncertain andunexpected outcomes (Herrington & Herrington, 1998; Kirschner, 2002; Wiggins,1993) It is, hence, fairly difficult to create that kind of context in the classroomenvironment So, the word “resembling” here means making the assessment close

to real life That leads to the second concern: “how close is appropriate?” and

“which framework is the most suitable one to evaluate authenticity of a languageassessment?”

Despite that some given criteria are adequately justified, no one can say thatperfect criteria for authenticity of an assessment method can be totally suitable forothers since each one possesses distinctive features In the next part entitled

“Toward a Framework to Assess Authenticity in Writing Portfolio Practice”, basing

on those above frameworks; theories for building a framework particularly used toevaluate authenticity of writing portfolios will be presented Before that, thereasons why such framework needs to be created as well as a close look intofeatures of writing and writing portfolios will be offered

2.3 WRITING PORTFOLIOS

2.3.1 Writing

2.3.1.1 Definition of writing and writing competence

Gunanadesikan (as cited in Syahid, 2010, p 17) opens her book byhighlighting the importance of writing:

Imagine a world without writing Obviously there would be no books, nonovels, no encyclopedias, no cookbooks, no textbooks, no travel guides.There would be no ball-points, no typewriters, no word processors, noInternet […] But such lists of objects also miss the point The world we live

in has been indelibly marked by the written world, shaped by the technology

of writing over thousands of years

In her opinion, writing is “a miracle”, yet the question is: how that “miracle”

is conceptualized? Lannon (1989) considers writing “the process of transformingthe material discovered by research inspiration, accident, trial and error, orwhatever into a message with a definite meaning-writing is a process of deliberate

decision” (p 9) Besides, Hamp-Lyon and Kroll (1997) talk about writing as “anact takes place within a context, that accomplishes a particular purpose, and that isappropriately shaped for its intended audience” (p 8) In a similar vein, Sperling(1996) declares: “writing, like language in general, is a meaning making activitythat is socially and culturally shaped and individually and socially purposeful”(p.55) Another definition is stated by Syahid (2010):

Writing can be defined as a mental and physical process of expressingthought and feelings by forming words into a sequence of arrangedsentences leading to the creation of meaning and the information Thewriting itself is influenced both by the personal attitudes and socialexperiences that the writer brings to writing and the impacts of the particularpolitical and institutional contexts It is also a process that what is written isinfluenced by the constraints of genre (p 20)

From those perspectives, it is obvious that writing involves an intentional,interactive, creative and complicated cognitive process

The term “competence” is generally defined as “the ability to do somethingwell, measured against standard, especially ability acquired through experience ortraining and linguistically, knowledge of a language that enables somebody tospeak and understand it”(Microsoft Encarta, 2009) Besides, Richard and Smith(2002) add an entry of competencies related to competency-based teaching.According to them, competencies are “descriptions of the essential skills,knowledge and behaviors required for the effective performance of a real worldtask of activities” (p 94)

In this research, writing competence can be understood as skills, knowledge,and behaviors of writing that enable a person to express his/her thoughts andfeelings in a satisfactory arrangement of sentences

From this perspective, there is no denying that writing is one of the mostdifficult skills for learners to master “Learning to write involves much more thansimply learning the grammar and vocabulary of the language” (Weigle, 2002, p.20) “Students have to pay much attention to higher level skills (macro levels skills)such as planning, organizing as well as lower level skills (micro level skills) such

as spelling, punctuation, word choice, and so on” (Nezakatgoo, 2010, p 231).Numerous teaching methods respecting writing are, thus, developed which makewriting assessment methods diverse too

2.3.1.2 Writing assessment methods

As stated in chapter 1, writing assessment methods have undergonesignificant changes According to Yancey (1999), the history of writing assessmentcan be divided into three “waves” The first waves (1950-1970) put premium onobjective, non-essay testing that prioritized efficiency and reliability At that time,assessment procedures were designed to “produce reliable numerical scores ofindividual student papers from independent judges basing on classical test theory”(Huot, 1996) In the second wave (1970-1986), holistic scoring of essays basing onrubrics and scoring guides were first developed Around the mid-1980 (the thirdwave), the decline in educational standards in the United States became a matter ofconcern It was likewise when portfolio-based assessment sparked interest innumerous specialists With reference to that period, Camp and Levine (1991) said:

Working with researchers from Educational Testing Service, we sought amodel of assessment that would build on students’ strengths rather thanhighlight their deficits Portfolio assessment seemed a most appropriate form

of evaluation for our purposes, a test that would be conceptualized (p 201)

Since then, portfolio-based approach has received considerable attention atmany conferences and major publications To cite one example of thatphenomenon, Callahan (as cited in Pierson, 2000, p 96) notes: “ten years ago few

teachers had heard of writing portfolios Today, however, portfolios are at thecenter of many discussions of classroom pedagogy, writing assessment, andcurriculum design” Furthermore, portfolios “give us an opportunity to make rightsome things that have been wrong in assessment” (Murphy, 1994, p 178) Hamp-Lyons and Condon (2000) also claim that “portfolios provide a broader measure ofwhat students can do, and because they replace the timed writing context, whichhas long been claimed to be particularly discriminatory against non-native writers”(p 61) In other words, by applying portfolios, the student-centered concept ofteaching would take priority over the traditional one (Lee, 2000) Burnham (1991)states that portfolios “establish a writing environment rather than a gradingenvironment in the classroom” (p 156) Such learner-directed atmosphere isbelieved to promote learning by allowing students to become more perceptive(Smith, 1993)

As this shows, it is easy to understand why nowadays; portfolio assessment

is the best-known and most popular form of alternative writing assessment Lyons & Condon 2000) More information respecting this assessment tool will bediscussed in the next part

(Hamp-2.3.2 Writing Portfolios

2.3.2.1 Definition of writing portfolios

Writing teachers and other educators have varied the concept of portfolios(Belanoff and Dickson, 1991; Gentile et al, 1995; Graves and Sunstein, 1992) Inattempt to define writing portfolios, says Hamp-Lyons (2003): “a writing portfolio

is a collection of the writer’s own work over a period of time, usually a semester orschool year” (p 29) Additionally, Yancey (1992, cited in Park, n.d) points out:

1 A portfolio is a collection of work, but it is a collection that is a subset of

a larger archive Theoretically, the archive is the whole of a student’s work,

but more practically and more frequently, it is a subset of writing completed

in a class, a program, and a school

2 The process by which the subset is created is one of selection, which isthe second principle of portfolios How entries are selected varies according

to the rhetorical situation contextualizing the portfolio

3 A third principle is reflection, the process by which a student explains his

or her learning

4 A fourth principle is communication, in the sense that the writingportfolio, like any portfolio, will communicate something about the writer,about what he or she values, about the context in which the writer hasworked, and so on (p 2)

In this study, the chosen definition is an adaptation from the above theories:

Portfolio is a purposeful collection of student work that tells the story of thestudent’s efforts, progress, or achievement in (a) given area(s) Thiscollection must include student participation in selection of portfoliocontent; the guidelines for selection; the criteria for judging merit; andevidence of student self-reflection (Arter & Spandel, 1992, p.37)

At ULIS, VNU, the writing portfolios are likewise the selective collections

of students’ writings which demonstrate the learners’ development over time Theteachers provide the students with different entries to write To illustrate, eachportfolio for the 2nd Fast-track students, in the second semester, includes thefollowing things:

 a table of contents

 a self-reflective report on all the learning activities during the semester.Particular attention should be paid to the writer’s challenges andexperience in the process of doing the weekly tasks, editing peers’works and making the portfolios

 05 pieces of writing (with first draft and revised version) including

- 01 compare-contrast or cause-effect

- 02 argumentative essays

- 01 comparative or argumentative synthesis

- 01 report of students After comparing features of the writing portfolios applied at ULIS and thechosen definition of such assessment method, it is concluded that generally, thewriting portfolios used at ULIS, specifically the ones of 2nd Fast-track studentsmatch with characteristics of portfolios to some certain extent They are theselective collection of students’ works during a semester The learners havechances to reflect on the progress they have made and what they have learnt bytheir own reports With regard to other aspects, more studies need conductingbefore the valid conclusions are reached

2.3.2.2 Advantages of writing portfolios

A review of the literature suggests a great number of benefits that writingportfolios provide Due to the limited scope of this study, this part only focuses onthree big advantages mentioned by Yancey (1992)

Firstly, they are longitudinal in nature as the teacher sets out quite explicitly

to create the time necessary for writers to develop “It can accommodate and evensupport extensive revision” (Song & August, 2000, p.50) For example, the writingtask starting on Monday need not be submitted one or two days later for the final

evaluation Instead, it can be revised and edited in light of what is learned throughdays or weeks, months or even longer As Weiser (1992) explained, such emphasis

on revision enables students “to put aside, at least temporarily, the paralyzing effect

of grades and concentrate instead on improving their writing” (p.194)

Secondly, portfolios enhance students’ ownership in their learning process

To be more specific, learners are given opportunities to decide which pieces theywill present to their teachers and /or what they would like teachers to see in thatwriting “This act of choosing introduces students to the idea that the judgment ofwhat is best is their own”(Dellinger, 1993, p 15) In addition, when students havechance to reflect on the writings they develop over a long period of time rather than

a brief one, their sense of authority grows as well (Ingalls, 1993; McClelland,1991) And it is interesting to note that “a greater sense of authority or ownership,

in turn, can increase learner motivation, since learners feel a greater personal stake

in the world they produce” (Pierson, 2000, p 109)

Another often-cited benefit of portfolios is assisting students with their learning According to Murphy (1994a), portfolios can give an impetus forstudents’ reflection in terms of their pieces as well as the processes they use towrite them Hence, students tend to be more active, thoughtful participants in

self-“evaluating their own growth” (p 201) An empirical study (Burksaitiene &Tereseviciene, 2008) in which students’ perceptions of keeping writing portfolioswere examined is a concrete proof of this point The results indicate that portfoliokeeping is effective and useful in promoting students’ development as independentlearners

2.2.3.3 Issues in writing portfolio implementation

Just because writing portfolios can have advantages listed above, it does notmean that there is no consideration Respecting the use of portfolios, Brown andHudson (1998) sum up from literature the following issues:

Firstly, using writing portfolios increases the risk of lacking reliability andvalidity One the one hand, it is held that the conclusions drawn from the portfoliosare heavily influenced by the person doing the evaluation (Rothman, 1990;Valencia, 1989) On the other hand, teachers-experts in assessment are not the onlyones taking part in assessment process Peer-assessment and self-assessment aretaken into account as well Hence, all assessors need to be trained to evaluatepapers basing on a common rubric The level to which the rubric is followedradically affects the inter-rater reliability Without a sufficiently high rate ofreliability, the score cannot be considered valid

The second problem is about building criteria As stated by Arter & Spandel(1992), good criteria present a conception of what is valued in an expertperformance Hence, to develop good criteria, great deal of content expertise isneeded

Besides, although “portfolios are increasingly seen as a way to evaluatestudents’ work more authentically and effectively […] there is a danger thatportfolios themselves can turn into more lifeless testing document rather thanliving, shifting portraits of learners, classrooms, and programs.” (Estrem, 2004)

So, how can we know a writing portfolio is authentic? Until now, this is a still acontroversial issue since the number of research on authenticity of writing portfolio

is little

Hamp-Lyons (2003) points out some crucial requirements to evaluateauthenticity of writing portfolios, but the content was very brief with no furtherexplanation or supporting evidence Kingore (2007) also offers practical ways tobuild portfolios with authentic assessment work Nevertheless, she only focuses onyoung learners (children) while writing is not put premium on Another studycarried out by David and Allison (2012) aims at exploring the degree to whichEnglish- foundation students within a Western University perceived the use ofoutcomes based portfolio to be an effective learning tool The results enrich the

understanding of students’ reactions and their overall feeling about the portfolios.However, in that case, “authenticity” is taken for granted.

From the above-mentioned analysis, authenticity in writing portfolios is,obviously, a matter of concern Although some studies have been conducted onsuch issue, there is scope for a great deal more research that evaluates authenticity

in writing portfolios basing on a clear-cut and appropriate framework

2.3 TOWARD A FRAMEWORK TO ASSESS WRITING PORTFOLIO AUTHENTICITY

2.3.1 Authentic Instruction

On the one hand, to achieve authentic assessment, it is crucial that classroominstruction and assessment properly align (Biggs, 1996; Van Merrienboer, 1997).Students need to be given the chances of practicing the assessment formsbeforehand, especially when such forms are complicated On the other hand,writing is one of the most challenging skills which require adequate guidance(Graham & Harris, 1996), and writing portfolios need to, firstly, create aninextricable link between classroom instruction and assessment (Wolfe & Miller,1997) From this perspective, even though the focus of this research is on authenticassessment, it would be a shortcoming if authentic instruction was excluded fromthe framework to assess the authenticity in writing portfolios

2.3.1.1 Authentic learning tasks

In the framework of authentic instruction developed by Gulikers, Bastiaensand Kirschner (2004), “authentic learning tasks” is the first dimension To serve thepurpose of helping test designers promote test authenticity, Bachman and Palmer(1996) also set a framework of language task characteristic In addition, Nitko(2000) mentions tasks in his forth feature of authentic assessments Accordingly,authentic tasks play a substantial role as evaluating writing portfolio authenticity

In turning to the concept of “task authenticity”, it is necessary to determinewhat “task” means first There are many definitions of that term, yet in this study;

Nunan’s (1989) position is adopted He regards task “a piece of classroom workwhich involves learners in comprehending, manipulating, producing or interacting

in the target language while their attention is principally focus on meaning ratherthan form” (p.23) From this perspective, the activities merely driving learners

‘attention to linguistic aspects (grammar, vocabulary….) are not considered tasks.Rather, they are called exercises

As being stated by Gulikers, Bastiaens and Kirschner (2004), theauthenticity of a learning task is shown via the extent to which the characteristics oftasks correspond to those of real-world/ professional task at students’ educationallevel Additionally, an authentic writing task allows students to retain theirownership and is perceived as meaningful, relevant or representative by students.Providing support/scaffolding is also of essence Those features are deemedsuitable for the tasks in authentic writing portfolios because of the followingreasons

First, basing on the aforementioned definition of authenticity, the view thatauthentic writing tasks should resemble the complexity of real-world tasks atstudents’ educational level is supported According to Slovin (2001), writers atdifferent levels process writing differently The level of complexity should be, thus,treated with caution as giving instruction or assessing the writing process Whatwould happen if people throw the baby out with the bath water? Immensesufferings are likely to be inflicted The same things probably happen to languagelearners Making students overload may exert detrimental effects on their learning(Sweller, Merrienboer & Pass, 1998) The qualitative case study on writingportfolios carried out by Pollari (2000) is a salient example Its findings suggestedthat a number of students disliked the portfolio course and became disappointedsince the approach was inefficient, difficult or unsuitable for them Therefore, it iseasy to understand why students’ writing abilities (language competencies, strategiccompetencies) need considering carefully, and authentic learning tasks, asreflecting real-life situation, should not lose sight of learners’ educational levels

Furthermore, “learner ownership” is a crucial element According to Enghagand Niedderer (2007) there are three fundamental processes included together can

be considered as student ownership:

First is the power process: opportunity and responsibility to take decisionsabout the task itself and how it is going to be implemented and fulfilled.Second is the management process: How the task is practically implementedand the results presented Third is the learning process: how individualconstrains and anomalies of understanding or high capacity are expressedand given effort towards during work (p 637)

Regarding writing portfolios, ownership implies some control over whatgoes into the portfolios and, probably, over where and how they are moved (Arter

& Spandel, 1992) Duffy (1995) also declares that it is important to decide early onwho "own" the portfolios since that is one of the key features making the writingportfolios authentic Consequently, “learner ownership” cannot be disputed fromthe framework for writing portfolio authenticity To be more specific, for one,power process is demonstrated through the degree to which students participate inselecting the content of the tasks used in their portfolios The management process

is demonstrated via students’ decision on how such tasks are implemented.Although it is possible for someone else (for example, a teacher) to decide thosethings, the true instructional value and power of doing portfolios comes whenstudents are given opportunities to make decisions on what they are going to do(Arter and Spandel, 1992) Such a process is authentic as it mirrors the true nature

of writing In real life, learners at higher education (for instance, M.A or PhD) canchoose the fields of interest to put their pens on For example, Nezakatgoo (2011)chose portfolio assessment for the fulfillment of his PhD while Winke (2006), M.Acandidate at Michigan State University, was keener on learning strategies Besides,journalists, book reviewers, novelists, and other type of writers are normally able to

decide their own type of genres Sometimes, external influences like employers’requirements or readers’ demand appear but it does not mean that the writers utterlylose control over their works From this perspective, giving students ownership in

“power process” and “management process” is of essence Furthermore, authenticlearning tasks need to allow students to pertain ownership in learning process Inother words, writers’ opinions and solutions are given space to be expressed Forexample, when teachers provide students a writing task, students are allowed todevelop ideas in their own ways This supports students in developing their criticalthinking and problem-solving skills (Shelly, 1995) As stated by the University ofKent Careers and Employability Service (2010), people all solve problems on adaily basis, in academic situations, at work and in day-to-day lives For instance,many authors develop their own descriptions to complement and clarify someoneelse’s, analyze information and decide what it means to them rather than simplymemorizing Another example is employees at work place In order to get succeed,they need to know how to solve problems and develop plans (LeFevre, 2011) It isprobably the reason why in this millennium, critical thinking and problem solvinghave become key issues (Arter, 1994) Consequently, that the authentic writingtasks assist learners in promoting critical thinking and problem solving skills bygiving them ownership in learning process is fundamental

Forth, scaffolding is likewise of essence in the learning tasks of the authenticwriting portfolios Scaffolding is the notion originated from the concept of zone ofproximal development (ZPD) conceptualized by Vygotsky (1978) As the name hasimplied, ZPD refers to the gap between the learner’s actual developmental leveland that of his potential one To bridge the gap, “more capable language users orinstructors scaffold less-advanced learners with prompts, guidance for appropriategoal, explanation of distinctive features of a task and demonstration of strategies”(Sa-Ngaphan, 2013, p 1) Such teaching strategy not only help “novices learners tostep up into their zone of proximal development (ZPD) but it also enables them to

do the task alone in the future” (Wood, Bruner & Ross,1999, p.26) By supportinglearners to meet their future needs, scaffolding methods precisely match the notion

of authenticity in language assessment in general and in writing portfolio inparticular

Last but not least, the learning tasks in authentic writing portfolios are theones regarded meaningful, relevant or representative in the eyes of students.Explaining that variable , say Gulikers, Bastiaens and Kirschner (2004): “Studentsperceive a task as relevant, that (a) they see the link to a situation in the real world

or working situation; or (b) they regard it as a valuable transferable skill” (p 74).They also stress that students should see the link between the task and theirpersonal interests before they perceive the task as meaningful Similarly, Guarientoand Morley emphasize “this is probably the most crucial type of authenticity asunless learners are genuinely interested in its topic and purpose, and understand itsrelevance, the other types of authenticity may count for very little” (p.46) Thisview applies to tasks in general, hence tasks in writing portfolios are notexceptions Take two case studies of second language writers’ experiencesconducted by Hirvela and Sweedland (2005) as an example The findings revealthat should the students consider their tasks relevant or meaningful, they wouldengage more in those tasks Positive impacts on their learning are created as well

2.3.1.2 Authentic physical context

In this study, physical context can be understood as the physicalcircumstances under which learning or assessing process takes place Due to thefact that in writing portfolios, assessment is “woven into instruction” (Murphy,1997), the physical contexts in language assessment and in authentic instruction areone and the same

Numerous previous researchers in assessment field have mentioned physicalcontext when discussing about authenticity Brown (1989), Bachman and Palmer(1996), Herrington & Oliver (2000), Guariento and Morley (2001) are typicalnames According to Bachman and Palmer (1996), authentic physical context(settings) of test should correspond with the physical context that target languageuse takes place in real-life Similarly, Gulikers, Bastiaens and Kirschner (2004)