The development of learner autonomy among vietnamese efl undergraduate students during their engagement in english language writing e portfolios

VIETNAM NATIONAL UNIVERSITY- HO CHI MINH CITY UNIVERSITY OF SOCIAL SCIENCES & HUMANITIES FACULTY OF ENGLISH LINGUISTICS & LITERATURE THE DEVELOPMENT OF LEARNER AUTONOMY AMONG VIETNAMESE

VIETNAM NATIONAL UNIVERSITY- HO CHI MINH CITY UNIVERSITY OF SOCIAL SCIENCES & HUMANITIES

FACULTY OF ENGLISH LINGUISTICS & LITERATURE

THE DEVELOPMENT OF LEARNER AUTONOMY AMONG VIETNAMESE EFL UNDERGRADUATE STUDENTS DURING THEIR ENGAGEMENT IN ENGLISH LANGUAGE WRITING E-PORTFOLIOS

A thesis submitted to the Faculty of English Linguistics & Literature

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

First of all, I would like to express my deepest appreciation and gratitude to my supervisor, Dr Đặng Tấn Tín, who has always been patient with me and supported me very much with valuable insights and critical advice throughout the hardships of this thesis journey I am always grateful to him for always being very sympathetic, encouraging and willing to guide me to be on the right track Without his guidance, I would never have had enough confidence to continue working on the thesis and reach this destination

My sincere thanks go to my colleagues and big sisters, Ms Đặng Thị Vân Di and

Ms Lưu Nguyễn Hà Vy for their constant spiritual support during the time I was working

on my thesis They always spared time to give me academic advice and shared useful learning sources with me Without their encouragement, I could not have completed this thesis

My grateful thanks also go to my teachers in Faculty of English Linguistics & Literature, University of Social Sciences and Humanities, Vietnam National University –

Ho Chi Minh City for their help in broadening my horizons Especially, my big thanks go

to Dr Phó Phương Dung It is her devoted teaching and knowledge that inspired me to come to the world of academics

Furthermore, sincere thanks go to Ms Nguyễn Kiều Yến Linh, Mr Trần Duy Khiêm, and other my TESOL friends for their spending time proofreading my thesis, and willing to share invaluable sources There were times I really wanted to give up, but they were always by my side to cheer me up

In addition, I owe a special debt to my colleagues for their willingness to share the workload with me Many thanks also go to the students who participated in this study I truly appreciate the time and effort they put in this study

Last but not least, my heartfelt gratitude goes to my family for their endless support and encouragement throughout the course and the completion of this study Their ever-lasting love, constant care and sacrifice have always been a great source of encouragement for me to move ahead in my life

STATEMENT OF ORIGINALITY

This is to certify that the thesis entitled The Development of Learner Autonomy among Vietnamese EFL Undergraduate Students during Their Engagement in English Language

Writing e-Portfolios is the product of my own work

The thesis has not been submitted for the award of any degrees or diplomas in any other

institutions

The thesis’s content, except where clearly acknowledged within the text, has not been

published by other authors

I hereby state that I approve the requirements of the University for the retention and use of

my thesis and that it is accessible for the purposes of study and research

Ho Chi Minh City, May 2019

Nguyễn Ngọc Anh Trang

RETENTION OF USE

I hereby state that I, Nguyễn Ngọc Anh Trang, being the candidate for the degree of Master

in TESOL, accept the requirements of the University relating to the retention and use of Master’s Thesis deposited in the library

In terms of these conditions, I agree that the originality of my thesis deposited in the library should be accessible for the purpose of study and research, in accordance with the normal conditions established by the library for the care, loan or reproduction of theses

Ho Chi Minh City, May 2019

ABSTRACT

Learner autonomy has been acknowledged to be a desirable educational goal To date, quite

a few studies have been conducted to gain better insights into this phenomenon, particularly

in the Vietnamese context However, very little research, in this context, has been found that explores students’ development of learner autonomy during their participation in e-Portfolios in English writing skills Therefore, this study, which employs a qualitative case study approach, is an attempt to explore the development of learner autonomy among eight first-year English major students during their engagement in the English writing e-Portfolios at a university in the South of Vietnam The data used for this study were mainly collected from the semi-structured interviews which were conducted after the Writing 2 course had finished The findings of the study revealed how the students’ learner autonomy were fostered in terms of three processes, namely Initiating, Monitoring and Evaluating during their engagement in the English writing e-Portfolios in the Writing 2 course The findings from the interviews suggested that the students experienced positive changes in their learning behaviours during the course, which demonstrated the developing process of learner autonomy during the students’ engagement in the English writing e-Portfolios Nonetheless, not all the attributes in the three processes of learner autonomy were fully developed Certain reasons were recommended to contribute to the findings Based on these findings, the pedagogical implications and recommendations are made for further studies in order to foster learner autonomy more in the field of teaching and learning English writing skills

Key words: learner autonomy, development, English language writing e-Portfolios,

writing skills

LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS

ELT: English Language Teaching

ESL: English as a Second Language

EFL: English as a Foreign Language

FFL: Faculty of Foreign Languages

ICT: Information and Communication Technology

L2: second language

LMS: Learning Management System

ZPD: Zone of Proximal Development

LIST OF FIGURES

Figure 2-1 Processes of learner autonomy 18

Figure 2-2 Components of the writing e-Portfolios 32

Figure 2-3 Conceptual framework of the study 37

Figure 3-1 A snapshot of the writing e-Portfolio interface 45

Figure 3-2 A snapshot of the interface of a student’s writing e-Portfolios on the platform 46

Figure 3-3 A snapshot of the interface of a student’s writing e-Portfolios on the platform 47

Figure 3-4 A snapshot of the interface of a student’s final submission 48

Figure 3-5 A snapshot of the interface of student’s reflections 48

LIST OF TABLES

Table 2-1 Model of learner autonomy 15 Table 2-2 Index of learner autonomy attributes in three processes 16 Table 2-3 Six types of e-Portfolios categorised by IMS Global Learning Consortium (2005)

25

Table 3-1 Schedule for writing assignments on writing e-Portfolios 49-50

TABLE OF CONTENTS

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS I STATEMENT OF ORIGINALITY III RETENTION OF USE IV ABSTRACT V LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS VI LIST OF FIGURES VII LIST OF TABLES VIII

CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION 1

1.1 BACKGROUND TO THE STUDY 1

1.2 AIM OF THE STUDY 4

1.3 THE RESEARCH QUESTION 4

1.4 SIGNIFICANCE OF THE STUDY 5

1.5 SCOPE OF THE STUDY 5

1.6 ORGANISATION OF THE THESIS 6

CHAPTER 2 LITERATURE REVIEW 7

2.1 LEARNER AUTONOMY IN LANGUAGE EDUCATION 7

2.1.1 Definitions of learner autonomy 7

2.1.2 Perspectives of learner autonomy 9

2.1.2.1 Technical perspective of learner autonomy 10

2.1.2.2 Psychological perspective of learner autonomy 10

2.1.2.3 Socio-cultural perspective of autonomy 11

2.1.2.4 Political – critical perspective of learner autonomy 12

2.1.3 Models of learner autonomy development 13

2.1.4 Using Information and Communication Technology (ICT) to foster learner autonomy 18

2.2 E-PORTFOLIOS IN LANGUAGE EDUCATION 21

2.2.1 Definitions of e-Portfolios 23

2.2.3 Effects of e-Portfolios 27

2.2.4 Writing e-Portfolios 28

2.3 E-PORTFOLIOS AND LEARNER AUTONOMY 33

2.4 CONCEPTUAL FRAMEWORK OF THE STUDY 36

2.5 SUMMARY 37

CHAPTER 3 METHODOLOGY 38

3.1 RESEARCH DESIGN 38

3.1.1 Qualitative research paradigm 38

3.1.2 Case study 39

3.1.3 Researcher’s position 40

3.2 RESEARCH SITE 41

3.3 PARTICIPANTS 42

3.4 INSTRUMENT 43

3.5 PLATFORM AND DEVELOPMENTAL PROCESS OF WRITING E-PORTFOLIOS 44

3.6 DATA COLLECTION PROCEDURE 50

3.7 DATA ANALYSIS PROCEDURE 52

3.7.1 Data transcription 52

3.7.2 Data translation 52

3.7.3 Data coding and analysis 53

3.8 TRUSTWORTHINESS OF THE QUALITATIVE RESEARCH 53

3.9 SUMMARY 54

CHAPTER 4 FINDINGS AND DISCUSSION 56

4.1 FINDINGS 56

4.1.1 Students’ development of learner autonomy in the Initiating process 56

4.1.1.1 Setting goals and making study plans 56

4.1.1.2 Looking for resources 59

4.1.2 Students’ development of learner autonomy in the Monitoring process 62

4.1.2.1 Maintaining agendas and taking actions based on the agendas 62

4.1.2.2 Employing suitable strategies 63

4.1.2.3 Selecting appropriate materials 64

4.1.2.4 Concentrating on learning 65

4.1.2.5 Collaborating with others 66

4.1.2.6 Negotiating and expressing one’s opinions 68

4.1.3 Students’ development of learner autonomy in the Evaluating process 68

4.1.3.1 Reflecting critically and evaluating learning outcomes 68

4.1.3.2 Correcting mistakes 70

4.2 DISCUSSION 71

4.2.1 Discussion on the development of learner autonomy in the Initiating process 72

4.2.2 Discussion on the development of learner autonomy in the Monitoring process 74 4.2.3 Discussion on the development of learner autonomy in the Evaluating process 76 4.3 SUMMARY 78

CHAPTER 5 CONCLUSION 79

5.1 CONCLUSION 79

5.2 LIMITATIONS OF THE STUDY 80

5.3 IMPLICATIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS FOR FURTHER RESEARCH 81

REFERENCES 83

APPENDIX 1: SYLLABUS FOR WRITING 2 99

APPENDIX 2: CONGRUENCE OF THE COURSE SYLLABUS AND WRITING E-PORTFOLIO ASSIGNMENTS 102

APPENDIX 3: GOAL SETTING TEMPLATE 104

APPENDIX 4: GUIDELINES FOR REFLECTION 105

APPENDIX 5: GUIDELINES FOR EVALUATION 106

APPENDIX 6A: INTERVIEW QUESTIONS WITH STUDENTS (ENGLISH VERSION) 110

APPENDIX 6B: INTERVIEW QUESTIONS WITH STUDENTS (VIETNSMESE VERSION) 111

APPENDIX 7: PARTICIPANT CONSENT FORM IN VIETNAMESE 112 APPENDIX 8: INTERVIEW SCHEDULE FOR STUDENTS 113 APPENDIX 9: EXCERPT OF THE INTERVIEW TRANSCRIPT 114

CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION

The chapter provides the background to this study, which was conducted at a public university in Ho Chi Minh City, Vietnam from January to April 2018 This research is a case study adopting qualitative method, to explore the English-major students’ development of learner autonomy In this chapter, brief background information about the context in which this case study is undertaken will be presented This introduction then leads to the researcher’s motivation for choosing the present topic and carrying out this research which will be clarified in the aim of the study From then, the research question

in the following part will be addressed Finally, the significance of the study and the overall structure of this study will be presented

1.1 BACKGROUND TO THE STUDY

In the field of English language learning and teaching, it has been claimed that writing skills are obviously crucial during the school years and beyond (Nippold, 2000) However, English writing skill is also considered to be one of the most difficult and challenging skills due to its demands for cognitive activities (Nunan, 1989; Kellogg, 2008) This might be one of the reasons that make learners less interested in writing skills Observing English-majored students over the past few years, the researcher has realised that they are quite reluctant to learn when it comes to writing In the Vietnamese context, another factor that is likely to hinder university students from enjoying writing activities might be their learning habits in secondary school and high school In fact, there seems to

be a mismatch between the goals set in the curriculum and the practice of teaching and learning English in high school in Vietnam (Bui, T.H.G., 2015) Despite the fact that the second language writing (hereafter abbreviated as L2 writing) is stated in the curriculum

to be one of the four major language skills, this skill is often ignored during the practice since it is rarely tested in the Graduation examination for high school students Then as a result, the main focus of English language learning and teaching (ELT) at the majority of

productive skills including writing and speaking Consequently, a great number of Vietnamese students do not have opportunities to learn writing skills in English although they have spent rather much time learning grammar and vocabulary The students then find

it very difficult to write in English Some students shared that they never wrote anything

in English until they started learning at the university From the researcher’s own experience, the students only learn what they are taught and do what they are told to do It can be judged that students appear to depend too much on the teacher’s instructions and

“lack the ability to direct their own learning” (Le, X.Q., 2013, p.23) It can be seen that the incapability to control one’s learning or the lack of learning autonomy might result in the students’ hesitation in their studying writing skills

In fact, promoting learner autonomy has played the key role in the Vietnamese higher education context (Phan, T.T.T., 2015) The notion of learner autonomy has become

a buzzword and received much greater attention in education, particularly in the field of ELT since English has been considered the most popular and “favoured foreign language” (Dang, T.T., 2012, p.8) A great deal of research has been conducted since 2000s to understand different aspects of language learner autonomy in the Vietnamese ELT context Empirical studies conducted by Nguyen, T.C.L (2009), Dang, T.T (2012), Le, X.Q (2013) and Phan, T.T.T (2015) investigated possibilities to foster learner autonomy among Vietnamese students, whereas Nguyen, T.N (2014) explored Vietnamese teachers’ beliefs

of learner autonomy in English language learning and teaching Given the fact that teaching and learning practice in Vietnam have been influenced by Eastern culture, in which teachers are authority in class and students are expected to obey their teachers, revealed by Nguyen, T H (2002) Thus, it is considered to be more teacher-centred That might also

be the reason to explain why Le,V.C (1999), Nhan, N.T and Lai, H.T (2012), and Dang,

T T (2010) agreed that teachers appear to be controllers while students are considered to

be rather passive and heavily rely on their teachers (cited in Nguyen, T H., Warren & Fehring, 2014) Likewise, as Nguyen, T.N (2014) stated, students are expected to listen to and accept knowledge from teachers rather than confront them directly As a result,

students obviously have very few opportunities to develop their independence in learning However, the current trend in language teaching and learning requires changes which make shifts from the teacher-centred approach to learner-centred approach Therefore, it is recommended that students should be supported in developing learner autonomy during their learning process This has required innovations in the educational fields in order to improve the teaching and learning quality of Vietnamese teachers and students as well as develop students’ autonomy

Innovations have come in different forms, one of which is the emergence of technology which has attracted a lot of public attention and has been widely integrated in the field of language education This situation closely fits with the assertion of Hamilton (2013) that the field of language learning and teaching needs to be in affiliation with technology to become an ideal pedagogical concept Among the technological tools that are proposed to promote learner autonomy, digital portfolios or e-Portfolios have witnessed

a constant growth in its use in tertiary education (Pospisilova, 2018) They have proved to

be a trendy tool in showcasing students’ work, supporting students with lifelong learning and promoting students’ autonomous capabilities Due to its benefits over paper portfolios, particularly because it is more feasible to be developed under web-based platforms into a system for institutions, or at least for classes, e-Portfolios have signified enormous potentials in serving educational purposes, posited by Hughes, Currant, Haigh, Higginson, Rodway and Whitfield (2010) As noted by González (2009), this virtual space is believed

to be “extremely useful as a pedagogical rather than a reporting tool” as it can provide more opportunities for teachers and students in language learning and assessment (p.373) Furthermore, with its learner-centred nature, according to Banks (2004), an e-Portfolio is strongly believed to be able to support learners in developing their autonomous skills in language learning

Nevertheless, using e-Portfolios in second language learning and teaching is still a new area of research in Vietnamese context even though they have existed for nearly three

decades and have been researched worldwide, mainly in developed regions such as Europe, North America, Australia and some parts of Asia such as Taiwan, Hong Kong, Japan In fact, there are very few studies conducted in the Vietnamese context related to e-Portfolios, particularly in the area of teaching and learning English writing skills In 2016, Phung T

L and Dang T T carried out a quasi-experimental study to examine the impacts of listening-speaking e-Portfolios on students’ learning of listening skills along with their perception towards learner autonomy Besides, even though there have been a few studies focusing on learner autonomy in terms of students’ perceptions and performances, little research has been found to explore students’ development of autonomy during their engagement e-Portfolio in English writing skills in the Vietnamese context of English language teaching

Taking all those research gaps into account, the current study is an attempt to explore how students developed their autonomous learning capabilities when participated

in the writing e-Portfolios

1.2 AIM OF THE STUDY

The main objective of the present study is to explore the development of learner autonomy as a process among the first-year students at a university in Ho Chi Minh City during their engagement in English writing e-Portfolios This is conducted to help understand how the students developed their autonomy in L2 writing, specifically in three processes of learner autonomy, namely Initiating, Monitoring and Evaluating process through their engagement in English writing e-Portfolios

1.3 THE RESEARCH QUESTION

Even though its significant role has been acknowledged in the field of education, learner autonomy has only been found in a few studies considering development of learner autonomy among students in the Vietnamese context Also, endorsed by the accumulated

three-year experiences in teaching writing courses, the researcher believed that learner autonomy can be promoted during the students’ participation in the e-Portfolios

Therefore, the purpose of this study is to explore the development of learner autonomy among first-year students during their engagement in English language writing e-Portfolios The current study aims to answer the following research question:

How do students develop learner autonomy in terms of three processes, namely Initiating, Monitoring and Evaluating during their engagement in English writing e-Portfolios?

1.4 SIGNIFICANCE OF THE STUDY

Some research has been carried out worldwide to have better insights into the implementation of writing e-Portfolios and a wide range of studies have sought to understand learner autonomy and find solutions to fostering learner autonomy However, within the context of Vietnamese educational institutes, writing e-Portfolios in English language learning still remain unpopular with students as a new approach to master their English Therefore, with an aim to answer such a research question, the study was expected

to gain significance in the following aspects Firstly, new insights into the developmental process of learner autonomy are yielded during the students’ engagement in the writing e-Portfolios Secondly, since the study, to some extent, offer new insights into the learners’ behaviours that show the developmental trend of learner autonomy, it can reveal implications for the development of the course syllabus to further enhance learner autonomy among students

1.5 SCOPE OF THE STUDY

The current study is bound to explore students’ development of learner autonomy while the students were engaged in e-Portfolios during the course Writing 2 which lasted one semester The focus was placed on exploring how students developed different

dimensions of learner autonomy during their participation in English writing e-Portfolios during a 15-week course Therefore, students’ writing achievements are beyond the scope

of this study Also, this study will not focus on the students’ attitudes or opinions about the writing e-Portfolio model Therefore, findings of the study would be based on qualitative descriptions, and thus would provide theoretical and practical background as well as tentative recommendations for further research

1.6 ORGANISATION OF THE THESIS

The study encompasses five separate chapters Chapter 1 provides an overview of

the study including the background, the statement of purpose, the research question, the

significance, and the scope of the study Chapter 2 is concerned with the literature review related to the study and the conceptual framework of the study Chapter 3 presents the

methodology of the study It covers the research question, the research design, the respondents to the study, the research instrument, the data collection procedure, the

analysis procedure of data, and the trustworthiness in qualitative research Chapter 4 deals

with data analysis with findings and discussions The first part of this chapter presents the analysis of the data as well as the analysis of the results from the semi-structured interviews

to understand the development of learner autonomy among the first-year English major students The major findings of this research will be presented in the second part of this

chapter Chapter 5 presents the conclusions of the study, discussions of the findings,

limitations and some recommendations to learners and teachers concerning the impacts of English language writing e-Portfolios and how to foster learner autonomy in teaching and learning writing skills in the future

CHAPTER 2 LITERATURE REVIEW

In the previous chapter, background information to the study has been given In this chapter, an attempt is made to provide a review of the literature on learner autonomy by discussing the definitions and different perspectives of learner autonomy in language education, along with the discussion on the different models of learner autonomy and the one adopted in this study Secondly, the literature of e-Portfolios is reviewed in the field of language learning and teaching in general and in teaching and learning writing skills in particular The related studies will then be discussed to find out the gaps Finally, the conceptual framework will be discussed at the end of this chapter

2.1 LEARNER AUTONOMY IN LANGUAGE EDUCATION

Learner autonomy has been considered an ultimate goal in the field of language education since it has captured special attention from researchers worldwide In the Vietnamese context, in the past ten years, a wide range of studies were conducted to explore different aspects of learner autonomy from teachers’ perspectives and students’ perspectives and make enormous contributions to the English language teaching and learning (Dang, T.T., 2012; Le, X.Q., 2013, Nguyen, T.N., 2014, Phan, T.T.T., 2015)

2.1.1 Definitions of learner autonomy

Over the last three decades, a considerable attention has been given to the notion of learner autonomy Since autonomy is regarded a multidimensional term which encircles concepts from different fields, such as education, philosophy, psychology and even politics (Blin, 2005), many attempts have been made to define the concept, categorise different versions, and explore the applicability of learner autonomy in various educational contexts

Learner autonomy was first introduced in the field of language learning and teaching

by Holec (1981), one of the pioneers in the field, as the “ability to take charge of one’s learning” (p.3), which means that learners should take responsibility for all the decisions

they have made in the activities in which they are or want to get involved He also proposed that a learner is autonomous in learning when he or she is able

to have, and to hold the responsibility for all the decisions concerning all aspects of this learning, determining the objectives, defining the contents and progressions; selecting the methods and techniques to be used; monitoring the procedure of acquisition properly speaking (rhythm, time, place, etc.); evaluating what has been acquired

(Holec, 1981, p.3)

It can be seen that the characteristics found in the definition above present the attributes of an autonomous learner It clearly explains what an autonomous learner can do, rather than how they can do it (Benson, 2007) Another characteristic is that the learner’s ability to learn autonomously is not inborn, but is improved by working towards learner autonomy That is to say, without practice or being used, it might be lost (Holec, 1981; Little, 1991) Also, an autonomous learner must take responsibility for all the decisions they make throughout a deliberate learning process rather than an immediate action, e.g setting learning objectives, choosing materials, monitoring progress, as well as assessing learning outcomes

Such a broad concept has laid the foundation for many other definitions of learner autonomy While Wenden (1991) conceptualised learner autonomy as the capacity of knowing how to learn, learner autonomy, from the view of Cotterall (1995), is manifested

as learners’ ability to demonstrate techniques in controlling their learning Dam (1995) posited that an autonomous learner is the one who can act independently and is motivated

in learning Also, Littlewood (1996) conceptualised autonomy as the ability and willingness of a learner to “make choices independently” (p.427), which is also in agreement with Boud’s (1988) claim that students can decide to go further than teachers’ instructions These definitions indicated the view of learner autonomy from the eyes of students On the other hand, some researchers defined learner autonomy which can also be

looked at from a teacher’s perspectives as follows From Dickinson’s (1987) view, learner autonomy is regarded as learners’ capacity to study without a teacher’s support Little (1990) then additionally stated that autonomy “is not [just] limited to learning without teacher” (p.7) Those definitions of learner autonomy, viewed from either students’ perspectives or teachers’ angles, the main focus lies on the students’ ability to take responsibility in their own learning and effectively govern different stages in the learning process

It can be found that different views of learner autonomy have been presented in various studies, which in fact can reveal the multifaceted nature of learner autonomy For instance, Allwright (1990) viewed learner autonomy from psychological stance, positing that students’ autonomy means a learner’ attitude or willingness to take responsibility in their learning, whereas Pennycook (1997) strongly criticised this psychological aspect of autonomy Taken this concept from the socio-cultural perspective, learner autonomy is different when examined in different social contexts, suggested by Dickinson and Sinclair (1997, cited in Oxford, 2003) Those views, in fact, trigger the explanations for different perspectives of learner autonomy that will be further explained in the following parts

2.1.2 Perspectives of learner autonomy

Put in practice, the concept of learner autonomy has been acknowledged in different perspectives Benson (1997) systematised learner autonomy in three perspectives, namely (1) technical aspect which focuses on students’ skills in learning management, (2) psychological aspect which centralises in students’ cognitive process in learning, and (3) political aspect focusing on learning process and content Years later, another perspective

of learner autonomy, namely socio-cultural aspect, was added by Oxford (2003) to appreciate the importance of autonomy development as the positive consequence of students’ interactions with the learning environment Each of these perspectives will be further explained in the following parts

2.1.2.1 Technical perspective of learner autonomy

According to Benson (1997), the technical perspective puts an emphasis on the impact of the learning environment in which learner autonomy can develop Autonomy is regarded as skills that are necessary for students’ management of their learning outside classrooms, and without supports from their teachers In other words, learning occurs when students have gained their independence in making their own choices and decisions about what, when and how to learn so as to achieve their learning goals Oxford (2003) posited that the learning environment has certain influences on the learner’s behaviours, learner autonomy can be promoted in any “other-created situation” which fosters students’ performances of their self-directed learning (p.81) Adopting this perspective of learner autonomy, several studies were carried out in self-access centres in which students can approach various sources of authentic materials and have their learning activities customised in their own ways (Christopher & Ho, 1996; Milton, 1997; Morrison, 2008, cited in Nguyen, T.N., 2014) This also explains the emergence of self-access centres around the world (Dang, T.T., 2012) However, it was pointed out that learner autonomy cannot be fully developed if the learners solely rely on external conditions Therefore, according to Benson (1997) and Oxford (2003), impacts from situational conditions suggested by the technical perspective such as technology, resources, or any other environments that activate autonomous learning appear to be inadequate in explaining the growth of learner autonomy It is essential to acknowledge learners’ attributes in the learning process that promote learner autonomy, which is considered the qualities of the psychological perspective of learner autonomy

2.1.2.2 Psychological perspective of learner autonomy

As Oxford (2003) asserted, “without psychology, the technical perspective [of learner autonomy] would be inert” (p.82) In addition to the technical perspective which centres on the physical situations, the psychological perspective puts the focus on learners’ characteristics Learner autonomy, therefore, in psychological perspective is defined by

Benson (1997) as learners’ capacity, “a construct of attitudes and abilities which allows learners to take more responsibility for their own learning” (p.19) In other words, these two qualities allow learners to control their own learning by making decisions on their own learning objectives, learning contents and learning process In fact, this perspective strongly concurs with Oxford’s (2003) claim of psychological autonomy as student’s mental and emotional attributes The psychological aspect of learner autonomy explains the cognitive process including all necessary strategies, knowledge, and attitudes about language learning (Wenden, 1991) that regulates students’ learning behaviours to help them achieve their learning goals

In fact, as mentioned above, the technical aspect considers the development of learner autonomy in out-of-class learning environments, and psychological perspective regards learners’ reasoning skills and processes as decisive factors of the autonomy growth; however, these two perspectives do not acknowledge the interactional aspect in the process

of constructing knowledge To fill this gap, Oxford (2003) recommended the socio-cultural perspective on learner autonomy which explained the construct of learner autonomy more extensively

2.1.2.3 Socio-cultural perspective of autonomy

According to Oxford (2003), socio-cultural perspective places a strong emphasis on

“mediated learning” (p.80), which considers social interactions as a key factor in developing students’ cognition and language Under the socio-cultural perspective, learner autonomy is constructed as the result of interactions between students and their learning environment (Benson, 2007; Smith & Ushioda, 2009) That is to say, being a member of a community, an individual is very likely to interact with other people to deal with matters Learner autonomy is then believed to be enhanced during the carrying out of these processes In fact, this perspective of learner autonomy is influenced by the theory of Zone

of Proximal Development (ZPD) (Vygotsky, 1978) and community of practice (Lave & Wenger, 1991) As stated by Vygotsky (1978), ZPD is the distance between what students

can achieve with and without assistance He also argued that the social interactions among learners and their peers as well as teachers are extremely important to their learning For that reason, if less capable learners are supported with scaffolding and collaborative learning exercises, they can become a powerful activator for these students to reach their maximum potential within their ZPD In terms of the theory of community of practice (Lave & Weger, 1991), students need to build up relationships with other members of a learning community in order to become a part of it Due to the process of connecting with each other, the capacity of learner autonomy can be promoted by such social interactions between learners and “situational influences” besides the acquirement of knowledge among learners (Dang, T.T., 2010, p.34)

2.1.2.4 Political – critical perspective of learner autonomy

In addition to the three perspectives mentioned above, another aspect of learner autonomy which involves the issue of “power, access, and ideology” is political – critical autonomy (Oxford, 2003, p.88) The question posed by Pennycook’s (1997) work requires the reconsideration into the notion of learner autonomy within the ideology of student-centeredness Contrary to the viewpoint of reductionists which separates politics from language learning and teaching, the political-critical perspective examines the context in case “students’ lives, desires, wishes, cultures, experiences, [and] backgrounds” are taken into account (Pennycook, 1997, p.42) He claimed that the involvement of these features might result in differences in terms of learners’ attitudes and ideologies In addition, it was also argued that learner autonomy develops when a student become “authors of their own worlds” (Pennycook, 1997, p.45) To achieve that, students should fight for “cultural alternatives” and raise their voices in language learning process to achieve a “more powerful life” (Dang, T.T., 2012, p.35)

This section was an attempt to have a deeper look into different perspectives of learner autonomy It can be seen that the four perspectives are in fact complementary to each other Motivated by the comprehensiveness of the four perspectives establishing the

construct of learner autonomy, the following section will explain the model of learner autonomy employed in the current study

2.1.3 Models of learner autonomy development

Candy (1991) stated that learner autonomy is a constant process which is open to educational interventions, rather than a state which is reached once and for all This idea obviously advocates Holec’s (1981) viewpoint which claimed that learning is not inborn, but gradually acquired through the learning process In other words, learning becomes autonomous when learners get involved in the process of acquiring the ability to assume responsibility for their learning even though they are not yet autonomous Based on that suggestion, different models have been proposed regarding the development of learner autonomy as a process Oxford (2008) described the notion of learner autonomy as a “hero with a thousand faces” (p.41) and attempted to document the three models in visual images

in this aspect related to the construct of learner autonomy

The first model is related to Nunan’s (1997) theory of stages This model presents five stages through which learner autonomy gradually changes and develops These five stages include (1) awareness – the learner is the recipient of information; (2) involvement – learners are the reviewer and selector among given options, which means that they can make their own choices; (3) intervention – learners adapt official goals; (4) creation – learners are the inventor, originators and creators of their own goals; (5) transcendence – learners need to identify their own interests and create their own learning goals that are relevant to those interests However, this model is not completely true in different cases For instance, since student A begins to learn English independently, he or she can choose his or her own goals from the list and select tasks to work on from a given set; therefore, based on the stage suggested in this model, she enters independent learning at second stage

On the contrary, student B starts studying English independently in a system which encourages learners to create their own goal and tasks; thus, he or she is obviously at stage four without going through earlier stages This example shows a drawback in “using a

language learning theory-driven model for the socially-mediate construct of learner autonomy” (Dang, T.T., 2012, p.39)

The second model illustrates learner autonomy in terms of levels Different studies organised learner autonomy as a matter of degrees (Farmers, 1994; Pierson, 1996, as cited

in Oxford, 2008) Littlewood (1996) also presented different levels of behaviours which a person makes independent choices or decisions at Put it differently, an activity is carried out based on choices that move in a hierarchical order, from low-level choices which control specific operations to higher-level choices which control the overall activity The hierarchy goes from low-level choices controlling specific operations through which the activity is carried out to high-level choices controlling the overall activity (Horvathova, 2010) However, learner autonomy is not simple enough to “be expressed in degrees”, as argued by Oxford (2008, p.47) Again, this model of learner autonomy in degree also presents the disadvantage in its incapability to express the non-linear developmental nature

of learner autonomy

The third model developed by Little (2000b) operationalises Vygotsky’s theory of stages and the concept of interdependence Learner autonomy in this model can be visualised as part of learning spiral The learner progresses to new levels of independence

by first moving through additional phases of interdependence (with a teacher or others) This suggests that the non-linear nature of autonomy is a part of the curving movement of the spiral, which is distinguished from the model of learner autonomy in stages or degrees However, this model can solely present the notion of learner autonomy from the socio-cultural perspective

It can be seen that even though the three models attempted to present the concept of learner autonomy in the development as stages, as part of a spiral or as degree, they are challenged by the non-linear developmental nature of learner autonomy Another disadvantage is that only one perspective is taken when learner autonomy is examined Therefore, the model suggested by Dang, T T (2012) has overcome the advantages with

its comprehensive framework that takes a look at learner autonomy from four perspectives The model is presented in Table 2-1 below

Learner

autonomy

Psychological perspective

Performed

in

Cognitive processes

Cognitively identifying learning styles

Cognitively modifying tasks Cognitively creating new task

Socio-cultural perspective Political-critical perspective

Demonstrated behaviours (classroom-like situation)

Performing selected learning styles

Modifying tasks Creating new tasks

Technical perspective

Situation management (beyond classroom)

Identifying resources from contexts

Modifying the resources Creating new resources

It can be seen from this model that the construct of learner autonomy comprises cognitive and behavioural components, which can be examined from any perspective of learner autonomy Dang, T.T (2012) argued that these two components consist of different attributes categorised into three processes of learner autonomy, namely initiating, monitoring and evaluating learning, which are in line with the proposed model by Little (2003) The compilation of those attributes is documented and tabulated in Table 2-2 as follows

Table 2-1 Model of learner autonomy (Dang, T T., 2012)

Processes Attributes

Initiating being aware of learning goals and strategies

identifying goals and setting goals making plans or work agendas looking for resources

Monitoring maintaining agendas and keeping track of learning

identifying and employing suitable strategies selecting appropriate materials

tailoring, customizing and personalizing learning being flexible and regulating learning

taking actions or implementing agendas concentrating on learning

collaborating and interacting with others expressing opinions and negotiating with peers

Evaluating reflecting critically

evaluating learning outcomes correcting mistakes

Even though different attributes navigated by the cognitive and behavioural components belong to distinct processes, the three learning processes of learner autonomy are interrelated They can take place sequentially or simultaneously during the learning process, posited by Dang, T.T (2012) The initiating learning process consists of attributes regarding setting goals, creating learning opportunities or preparing study plans The monitoring learning process focuses on attributes about learning engagement and maintenance The evaluating learning process includes attributes related to assessing

Table 2-2 Index of learner autonomy attributes in three processes (Dang, T T., 2012)

learning outcomes such as evaluating a piece of writing and correcting one’s writing mistakes

It was also argued that these three processes appear to be discrete ones, “they actually overlap when being performed” (Dang,T.T., 2012, p.56) Put differently, in order

to monitor a learning process effectively, a student might need to initiate his/her own learning opportunities and evaluate his/ her current practices For instance, that an EFL learner decides to watch an English film without any subtitles can be interpreted as his/her initiating his/ her learning opportunity in English learning process by setting specific goals,

or evaluating his/her own English proficiency in listening skills, or even both

Furthermore, it was also suggested that the development of one process may depend

or not depend on the development of the other two processes (Dang, T.T., 2012) In other words, an EFL learner who is good at initiating his/her own learning might be good at monitoring and evaluating his/her own progress; however, this is not necessarily applied

in all cases

The following figure 2-1 visually summarises the development of the three learning processes of learner autonomy Cognitive and behavioural components, which take responsibilities for the control of learning activities, establish the construct of learner autonomy These components are posited to keep three learning processes of learner autonomy, namely initiating, monitoring and evaluating under control These three processes are believed to take place in a cyclic order to generate effective learning outcomes

Figure 2-1 Processes of learner autonomy (adopted from Dang, T T., 2012)

Since this model can not only present the nature of learner autonomy as a process (Candy, 1991), it also features the three processes that demonstrate the developmental process of learner autonomy navigated by cognitive and behavioural components, this model is well suited for the current study in exploring the development of learner autonomy shaped by students’ engagement in English language writing e-Portfolios

2.1.4 Using Information and Communication Technology (ICT) to foster learner autonomy

Acknowledged as an ultimate goal in the field of language learning and teaching (Benson, 2001; Dang, T.T., 2010; Phan, T.T.T, 2015; Waterhouse, 1990), learner autonomy has become one of the most influential “curricular discourses” within new curriculum and pedagogic practice in this era (Deng, 2012, p.41) In other words, teaching practice should be changed from teacher-centred approaches to learner-centred ones so as

to encourage students to establish their own knowledge and learning competence There arises constructivism, an approach that moves away from the one-way teaching method in which the teacher only transmits the knowledge to students; instead, this theory moves

Initiating

Monitoring

Evaluating

Cognitive Behavioural

: Controlling direction

in learning” (Kaufman, 2004, p.303) According to constructivists, learners can construct their own knowledge when taking part in learning process actively (Duffey & Jonasse,

1992, cited in Wang, 2011) Therefore, it is suggested that students build up their knowledge based on what they have experienced or they have already known (Barnes,

1976, cited in Little, 1996) Secondly, constructivism emphasises that learners should be experiencing real learning situations in order to be more motivated in constructing knowledge Thirdly, collaboration should be promoted among learners so that they can develop their own knowledge by learning from each other’s viewpoints (Liu & Zhang, 2014)

Different approaches based on the constructivist theory, putting an emphasis on learner-centeredness, have been utilised outside classrooms to promote learner autonomy The most common form of the approach that has been used outside the classroom is based

on computer mediated communication (Dang T T & Robertson, 2010; Hamilton, 2013) and computer-assisted language learning (Klaus, 2012, cited in Nguyen, T N., 2014) This section will draw on different studies in this area to understand how learner autonomy can

be promoted through an ICT-supported learning environment

In 2011, Ankan and Bakla carried out a study to investigate the uses of blogs as a means of fostering autonomous learning in a Turkish university The blogs were designed based on the constructivist learning theory, creating a free and interactive environment for

17 EFL students with the hope to develop their language skills and increase interactions with their peers Blogs could help learners to improve their skills in terms of making decisions about learning independently, being less dependent on teachers, and being engaged in critical reflection The results from observations, a questionnaire and structured interviews revealed that blogs could be a useful tool to facilitate learners to learn English more autonomously

Another study was conducted Chang and Liu (2013) using the constructivist learning theory to build a website for English language learning at a Chinese university

The purpose of using the website was to cultivate self-learning ability in students by providing extra-curricular practice for the students The results showed that the English language learning web was beneficial in terms of developing students’ self-management and their language proficiency It was also found that the students in the experimental group had more positive attitudes, as they felt more autonomous in learning

A recent study by Turula (2017) looked at the social construct of learner autonomy from the use of a social networking site, Italki The first part of the research studied the social networking site itself as a language learning environment with the aim at investigating its potential for interdependent learning in different aspects of learner autonomy: emotional, political, and spatial (Murray, 2014) The tool used in this part was observation and the researcher’s experience as a user Secondly, the study also explored the motivation in learning English among ten users when using the social networking site Italki The data collected from ten semi-structured interviews and the observation together with the experience of the researcher indicated that Italki has very big potential to develop learner autonomy For some users, learner autonomy is more about their opportunities to learn from other people This result was in congruence with the socio-cultural perspective

of learner autonomy, which claims that learner autonomy not only means independence but also includes the interdependence occurring when students have interactions with others in their learning environment (Little, 2004, cited in Phung, T L., & Dang, T.T., 2016)

In fact, constructivist approaches are very much in line with the psychological and socio-cultural versions of learner autonomy On the one hand, from the psychological perspective of learner autonomy, it is suggested that learning is the rearrangement of students’ learning experiences, not simply their recollection of knowledge (Dang, T T., 2010; Le, X Q., 2013) On the other hand, in terms of socio-cultural perspective, Smith and Ushioda (2009) stated that interactions between students and their learning context will help develop learner autonomy According to Vygotsky’s (1978) theory about the Zone of

Proximal Development (ZPD) and community of practice (Lave & Wenger, 1991), it is extremely important for learners to be offered a supportive learning environment with their peers or teachers, in which they can be provided with scaffolding language exercises and practice collaboration with their peers or teachers to reach the biggest potential within their ZPD To make it clearer, scaffolding is defined as a structure built next to a construction

to help workers when they are working When applied in language acquisition, it highlights the series of actions through Vygotsky’s ZPD, and it involves the assistance which learners can receive from peers, teachers or other sources they have interactions with Thanks to these supports, learners are enabled to acquire skills and knowledge from other members

to increase their own competence (Phung, T L & Dang, T T 2016) Such cooperation and interaction between learners and the learning environments can develop “learner autonomy capacity” (Dang, T T., 2010, p.34)

It is argued that “the significant contributions of socio-cultural factors [are] shaping

students’ perceptions and their performance of learner autonomy” (Dang, T.T., 2012, p.37) Moreover, the afore-mentioned studies also presented the usefulness of technology in offering learners more opportunities to practice outside the classroom, and e-Portfolio is regarded as a beneficial interactive and collaborative learning environment outside the classroom Therefore, the researcher decided to explore students’ development of learner autonomy during their participation in the English writing e-Portfolios More description

of writing e-Portfolios will be presented in the next part

2.2 E-PORTFOLIOS IN LANGUAGE EDUCATION

Thanks to the shift from teacher-centred approach to learner-centred process, a variety of teaching methods have been innovated and applied to develop students’ learning process Proven to be an effective learning tool, portfolios have become a popular option

by educationists (Elango, Jutti, & Lee, 2005)

Throughout history, different definitions have been given to the term “portfolio” Even though the idea of portfolio comes from the field of fine art, and indeed they are the products of artists’ performance, it has become an increasingly popular option in the area

of language education Whereas Jongsma (1989) recognised portfolios as a kind of students’ experience in learning language skills, Brandt (1989) presented portfolios as an exhibition of students’ works It can be seen that a certain portfolio is a meaningful aggregation of student’s learning production that demonstrates their attempts, improvement and/ or accomplishment in their knowledge, skills or in certain areas (Arter

& Spandel, 1992; Sherry & Bartlett, 2005)

A certain portfolio is considered not only a student’s collection of works with development over time but also his/ her selection of what to be included in the portfolio, which is instructed by the teacher It exhibits a wide range of writing performances along with the student’s reflection that helps identify and improve his or her weaknesses in the writing works Furthermore, the criteria for selecting and assessing the portfolio contents must be clarified to the teacher and the students at the beginning of the process Collection, reflection and selection are considered the most important characteristics of a portfolio A series of written works is useful for the process of evaluation and reflection as well as the selection Therefore, portfolios are utilised as a purposeful display of student’s collection

of written text over a period of time which is systematically planned, instructed, implemented and evaluated by the teacher during the process

Over the past few decades, due to the advancement of technology, digitisation has become an increasing tendency in every aspect of life, in which education is not an exception As for Coffey and Ashford-Rowe (2014), the derivation of e-Portfolios generated from paper portfolios that has been mainly used in higher education for

evaluating the study process and students’ achievement With the facilitation of the

Internet, a paper portfolio which is transformed into an e-Portfolio is a collection of digital artefacts which articulates experiences as well as presents a learner’s achievements and

learning (JISC, 2008, cited in Cheng & Chau, 2013) by allowing users to have their own patterns of collecting and organizing their learning records (by Funk, 2004, cited in Chanlin

& Chan, 2004) Since then, a variety of terms have been used to refer to the concept of Portfolios such as ‘digital portfolios’, ‘digital learning portfolios’, or ‘electronic portfolios’, ‘e-portfolios’ or ‘webfolios’, claimed by Hallam and Creagh (2010)

e-2.2.1 Definitions of e-Portfolios

Different definitions have been given to the notion of e-Portfolios As defined by Barrett (2005), an e-Portfolio is “the container, allowing students/ teachers to collect and organi[s]e portfolio art[e]facts in many media types (audio, video, graphics, text); and using hypertext links to organi[s]e the material, connecting evidence to appropriate outcomes, goals or standards.” (p.5)

In another research, Barrett (2006) further defined an e-Portfolio as “an electronic collection of evidence that shows our learning journey over time.” (p.6) In fact, e-Portfolios are not simply a collection of documents Hallam and Creagh (2010) claimed that the main factors that determine the terms for e-Portfolios are the contexts and the objectives of their use McAlpine (2005) also shared this view, declaring that although e-Portfolios have five characteristics: (1) a collection which is orderly arranged, (2) digitised artefacts included, (3) seeking to provide an authentic record, (4) related to an individual’s status, and (5) associated with learning, these characteristics seem to be related to uses and purposes of the e-Portfolios rather than their features From Attwell’s (2007) perspective,

an e-Portfolio is more than a technological product or system but a process It can be seen that e-Portfolios can be defined based on their purposes and goals These definitions clearly commend the benefits of e-Portfolios as a documentation storage that showcases and reflects one’s growth in learning

Moreover, Moritz and Christie’s (2005) research suggested that e-Portfolios can serve as a useful tool in fostering students’ analytical skills, goal setting, and motivation

As for Lorenzo and Ittelson (2005), e-Portfolios are a helpful aid in promoting students’ critical thinking skills and self-reflection Another research of van Wyk (2017) also reaffirmed that e-Portfolios should work as a method that can stimulate self-regulating learning Jwaifell (2013) also posited that an e-Portfolio is not only an assessment tool for the time being but also used as a lifelong learning tool Not only do e-Portfolios act as a collection of works over time, but they also provide a tool to capture every stage of students’ learning process

In general, it can be seen that different definitions can be used to give the overall view of e-Portfolios In some contexts, they can be simply understood as digital collections

of students’ artefacts which present their experiences, achievements and outcomes In other contexts, they are defined by the purposes they serve, or by the audience they aim at Those definitions, in fact, demonstrate the multifaceted nature of e-Portfolios, which promises varied usages in the field of teaching, learning and assessing

2.2.2 Classification of e-Portfolios

There have been different ways suggested to categorise e-Portfolios, mainly based

on the purposes and applications of the e-Portfolios

DiBiase (2002) proposed three main types of e-Portfolios based on the three main target users that can be also applied for the electronic version, including students learning e-Portfolios, teacher e-Portfolios and institutional e-Portfolios On the other hand, the IMS Global Learning Consortium (2005) classified e-Portfolios into six main types based on the various uses of e-Portfolios (cited in Hallam & Creagh, 2010), which include learning, assessment, personal development, presentation, and working/ professional or group The following table summarises the primary purposes that each type of e-Portfolio reflects

Table 2-3 Six types of e-Portfolios categorised by IMS Global Learning Consortium

(2005)

e-Portfolio types Primary purposes

Learning  Learning e-Portfolios are used for storing, organising and

guiding a person’s learning over time

Assessment  Assessment e-Portfolios are used to display a person’s

achievements, or skills and competencies which enable him

or her to earn the recognition or to pass an assessment

Personal Development Personal development e-Portfolios are a showcase of a

person’s progress and development in his or her education or career

 Presentation



Presentation e-Portfolios can be used to demonstrate a learner’s achievements or learning

 Working/Professional  Working e-Portfolios (or Professional e-Portfolios) are a

collection of evidence which can show one’s performance

at his or her workplace, and demonstrate that a person has the evidence to meet professional/industry standards

 Group Group e-Portfolios can be possessed or managed by multiple

people to showcase teamwork, e.g a display of what has been done for a project in a group

Meanwhile, Villano (2005) suggested that e-Portfolios should be characterised into three main kinds, involving developmental, reflective and representational ones The developmental e-Portfolios are an accumulation of the assignments over a period of time The reflective ones show the reflections and personal features of each individual through

the contents Besides, the representational e-Portfolios provide evidence of one’s efforts and achievements related to their works over time

Besides the above-mentioned categories, another type was recommended by Barker (2006) considering e-Portfolios as either a product or a process In the role of a product, e-Portfolios encompass all digital artefacts presenting “experiences and achievements, articulating actual learning outcomes” (cited in Hallam & Creagh, 2010, p 181) that build

up the personal space of each individual, focusing on what the learner has learned In language learning and teaching, this kind of e-Portfolio is considered a collection of a student’s best works as well as a tool for students’ self-evaluation ability during a language course (Yurdabakan, 2011) This can also work as a publication of senior students’ competence which can be shown to their potential interviewers in applying for a job (Chau

& Cheng, 2010) On the other hand, as a process, e-Portfolios emphasise the way of learning, answering the question “how” indicating the process, rather than the outcomes Growth e-Portfolios is another term for this kind of e-Portfolio which helps keep track of one’s learning progress or learning improvement by requiring students to continually make

a contribution, modification, and show reflection on their own works (Moya & O’Malley, 1994) This type of e-Portfolio is totally suitable for formative assessment, which helps teachers and students monitor their learning and teaching pace more easily

Interestingly, moving beyond the proposal of Barker (2006), an expert in the research field of e-Portfolio, Barrett (2010) suggests that e-Portfolios are actually the combination of both product and process, consisting of a wide range of activities and the outcomes of those activities, which present the “two [different] faces of e-Portfolios” (p.6) This is in line with the classification of e-Portfolios by Stefani, Manson and Pegler (2007) They categorise e-Portfolios into three main kinds: product, process and assessment Assessment e-Portfolios comprise all artefacts of students’ learning and their works over time, together with the evidence for their learning This type of e-Portfolios, according to

Cummin and Davense (2009), is appropriate for formative assessment, which is a very different form from the traditional assessment

In brief, as Lopez-Fernandez and Rodriguez-Illera (2009) conclude, e-Portfolios are implemented with the main purposes of equipping students with their own storages of learning records, offering them online supports and facilitation from teachers and promote their self-management in learning in order to achieve better learning outcomes

2.2.3 Effects of e-Portfolios

An e-Portfolio is supposed to possess the basic characteristics of a paper portfolio with more technological innovation that helps it outperform paper portfolios It is the electronic feature, according to Banks (2004), which can change the inanimate information into more dynamic and flexible information for further development or recontextualisation since it can be shared with others as well as viewed from different perspectives Additionally, there are remarkable advantages of the e-Portfolio over paper portfolio that were presented by Karsenti and Collin (2010) in their research of the application of e-Portfolios in French second language learning Different aspects of the functions of the e-Portfolio were taken into consideration First, e-Portfolio is obviously beneficial due to its storage capacity to host a huge number of texts Besides, e-Portfolio has been proved to be more advantageous than the paper one in which it helps enhance the communication among students, between students and the teacher, as well as provide opportunities for negotiation

of meaning and feedback Specifically, using the Web as a means of support for learners is highly recommended, and in particular as a source of information and information exchange for teachers and teacher trainers (Schneider & Lenz, 2001) Interestingly, an e-Portfolio is more attractive because of the variety of themes and colours which seem to draw more attraction to students

Banks (2004) proposed the advantages of using e-Portfolios in language learning and teaching that help us have a better insight into the proper use of this type of assessment