The effects of efl listening speaking portfolios students learning of efl listening, speaking skills and their perception towards learner autonomy m a

FACULTY OF ENGLISH LINGUISTICS & LITERATURE THE EFFECTS OF EFL LISTENING-SPEAKING PORTFOLIOS ON STUDENTS’ LEARNING OF EFL LISTENING, SPEAKING SKILLS AND THEIR PERCEPTION TOWARDS LEAR

FACULTY OF ENGLISH LINGUISTICS & LITERATURE



THE EFFECTS OF EFL LISTENING-SPEAKING PORTFOLIOS ON STUDENTS’ LEARNING OF EFL LISTENING, SPEAKING SKILLS AND THEIR PERCEPTION TOWARDS LEARNER AUTONOMY

A thesis submitted to the Faculty of English Linguistics & Literature

in partial fulfillment of the Master’s degree in TESOL

VIETNAM NATIONAL UNIVERSITY –HOCHIMINH CITY

UNIVERSITY OF SOCIAL SCIENCES & HUMANITIES

FACULTY OF ENGLISH LINGUISTICS & LITERATURE



THE EFFECTS OF EFL LISTENING-SPEAKING PORTFOLIOS ON STUDENTS’ LEARNING OF EFL LISTENING, SPEAKING SKILLS AND THEIR PERCEPTION TOWARDS LEARNER AUTONOMY

A thesis submitted to the Faculty of English Linguistics & Literature

in partial fulfillment of the Master’s degree in TESOL

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

The process of writing this thesis has been one of the most challenging but

involved many other people whose kindness and support earned them my deep gratitude

I would first like to thank my thesis supervisor – Dr Đặng Tấn Tín of the Faculty

of Foreign Languages, Ho Chi Minh City University of Technology and

Education He has been consistently supportive to me from the beginning to the completing stage of doing this thesis In spite of allowing this thesis to be my own work, he always steered me in the right direction when he thought I needed it Besides, his expertise, strong work ethic, and enthusiasm have always inspired me

to take on commitment to fulfill the thesis no matter how many challenges I

encountered along the process

I would also like to thank the instructors of the Master program at the Faculty of English Linguistics and Literature, and Informatics and IT center, University of Social Sciences and Humanities Their devoted and enthusiastic teaching and guidance in the constituent courses have provided me with profound knowledge and essential academic skills to carry out this study

My special thanks also go to my colleagues, especially Ms Hoàng Ngọc Trang of the Faculty of Foreign Languages, Ho Chi Minh City University of Technology and Education and Ms Nguyễn Thu Hồng of Faculty of Fundamental Sciences, PetroVietnam University Without their discussion and encouragement, I may not have been able to overcome occasional trouble spots when doing this research I would also like to acknowledge my students who eagerly participated in the two investigated Speaking classes Even though they were unaware of the experiment, their committed learning helped me gain sufficient and reliable data for the study

Finally, I must express my gratitude to my family for their unconditional love, sympathy, support, and encouragement throughout the years of study and the process of doing and writing this thesis This accomplishment would not have been possible without them

STATEMENT OF ORIGINALITY

I hereby certify my authorship of the thesis submitted today

entitled:

THE EFFECTS OF EFL LISTENING-SPEAKING

PORTFOLIOS ON STUDENTS’ LEARNING OF EFL LISTENING, SPEAKING SKILLS AND THEIR

PERCEPTION TOWARDS LEARNER AUTONOMY

In terms of the statement of the requirements for the Thesis in Master’s Program issued by the Higher Degree Committee

This thesis has not been submitted for the award of any degree or

diploma in other institution

Ho Chi Minh City, September 2016

PHÙNG THANH LOAN

RETENTION OF USE

I hereby state that I, Phùng Thanh Loan, 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 original 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, September 2016

TABLE OF CONTENTS

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS i

STATEMENT OF ORIGINALITY iii

RETENTION OF USE iv

TABLE OF CONTENTS v

LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS viii

LIST OF TABLES ix

LIST OF FIGURES x

ABSTRACT xi

CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION 1

1.1 Context of the study 3

1.1.1 The general context of the study 3

1.1.2 The specific context of the study 6

1.2 Aims of the study 9

1.3 Research questions 9

1.4 Significance of the study 9

1.5 Scope of the study 10

1.6 Organization of the study 10

CHAPTER 2: LITERATURE REVIEW 12

2.1 E-portfolios in language education 12

2.1.1 Definition of e-portfolios 12

2.1.2 Classification of e-portfolios 13

2.1.3 Components of e-portfolios 15

2.1.4 Speaking e-portfolios 16

2.1.5 Challenges of using e-portfolios 22

2.1.6 Benefits of using e-portfolios……… 23

2.2 Learner Autonomy 31

2.2.1 Definition of learner autonomy 31

2.2.2 Versions of learner autonomy 32

2.2.3 Learner autonomy promoting principles in the current study 36

2.2.4 Conceptual framework of the study 38

Chapter Summary 41

CHAPTER 3: METHODOLOGY 42

3.1 Research questions 42

3.2 Research design 42

3.3 Context of the study 44

3.4 Participants 45

3.5 Platform and Development Process of SEP for TG 48

3.6 Speaking Assignments for Both Groups 50

3.7 Instruments 52

3.7.1 Questionnaire 52

3.7.2 Speaking pre-test and post-test 54

3.7.3 Validity and Reliability 55

3.8 Data Collection Procedure 57

3.8.1 Questionnaire 57

3.8.2 Speaking pre-test and post-test 57

3.9 Framework of data analysis 58

3.9.1 Statistical method for the questionnaire 59

3.9.2 Statistical methods for students’ speaking pre-test and post-test 59

Chapter Summary 60

CHAPTER 4: RESULTS AND DISCUSSION 61

4.1 Analysis of data 61

4.1.1 Distribution of the questionnaire data 61

4.1.2 Reliability of the questionnaire 62

4.1.3 Inter-rater reliability of TG and CG students’ scores rated by two scorers in speaking pre-test and post-test 66

4.1.4 The extent to which SEP improved learner autonomy dimensions 67

4.1.5 The impact of SEP on students’ achievement in learning speaking skills 74

4.2 Discussion 78

4.2.1 The extent to which learner autonomy dimensions were promoted by

SEP 78

4.2.2 The impact of SEP on students’ achievement in the speaking course 83

4.2.3 The impact of SEP on learner autonomy dimensions and students’ speaking achievement 90

Chapter summary 92

CHAPTER 5: CONCLUSION 93

5.1 Summary of the study 93

5.2 Recommendations 96

5.3 Limitations 98

5.4 Contributions of the study 99

5.5 Suggestions for future research 101

REFERENCES 102

APPENDIX 3A: Guidelines for Peer-reflection on Speaking Assignments 112

APPENDIX 3B: Guidelines for Self-reflection on Speaking Assignments 114

APPENDIX 3C: Guidelines for Conference Reflection 117

APPENDIX 3D: Course Description 118

APPENDIX 3E: Congruence of the Course Schedule and SEP Speaking Assignments 121

APPENDIX 3F: Questionnaire – English Version 124

APPENDIX 3G: Questionnaire – Vietnamese Version 126

APPENDIX 3H: Speaking Pre-test 131

APPENDIX 3I: Speaking Post-test 133

APPENDIX 3J: Marking Scheme for Speaking Pre-test 135

APPENDIX 3K: Marking Scheme for Speaking Post-test 136

APPENDIX 4A: Output of Normal Distribution Test 137

APPENDIX 4B: Output of Cronbach’s Alpa Computation 158

LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS

EFL: English as a Foreign Language

ELP: European Language Portfolio

SEP: Speaking e-portfolio

TG: Treatment group

CG: Control group

LIST OF TABLES

Table 2.1: Six types of e-portfolios classified by IMS Global Learning Consortium 15

Table 3.1: Differences in the requirements for TG and CG students to submit and

reflect on speaking assignments 47

Table 3.2: Schedule for SEP speaking assignments and conference 50

Table 3.3: Speaking assignments for both group 51

Table 3.4: Learner Autonomy dimensions/ sub-dimensions operationalized in the

study and the equivalent items in the questionnaire 54

Table 4.1: An Extract of Skewness and Kurtosis Values of 51 Items Regarding Learner Autonomy Dimensions 62

Table 4.2: Cronbach’s Alpha coefficients for ten investigated learner autonomy sub-dimensions 64

Table 4.3: Summary of items deleted and highest possible Alpha for each scale 65

Table 4.4: Inter-rater reliability of TG and CG students’ scores rated by two

scorers in speaking pre-test and post-test 66

Table 4.5: Comparison of TG and CG students’ involvement in learning process 69

Table 4.6: Mean differences of two groups on Learner Involvement dimension 70

Table 4.7: Comparison of TG and CG students’ ability to use English

appropriately 71

Table 4.8: Mean difference of two groups on Appropriate Target Language Use

dimension 72

Table 4.9: Comparison of TG and CG students’ ability to reflect on the learning process and on what they learnt from doing the assignment 73

Table 4.10: Mean difference of two groups on learner reflection dimension 73

Table 4.11: Mean difference of two groups’ scores in speaking pre-test 75

Table 4.12: Comparison of TG and CG students’ Speaking Pre-test Scores 75

Table 4.13: Mean difference of two groups’ scores in speaking post-test 76

Table 4.14: Comparison between TG and CG students’ Speaking Post-test Scores 76

Table 4.15: Summary of SEP effects on learner autonomy dimensions and

students’ achievement in learning speaking skills 77

LIST OF FIGURES

Figure 2.1:Common aspects of speaking e-portfolios 20

Figure 2.2: Three pedagogical principles to promote learner autonomy 38

Figure 2.3: Conceptual framework of the study 40

Figure 3.1: A snapshot of the interface of the web page 48

Figure 3.2: A snapshot of the interface of a student’ SEP on the web site 49

ABSTRACT

Emerged in the ESL classroom since the last decade, e-portfolios have been

appreciated and preferred as a promising teaching, learning, and assessing tool Studies have been carried out to investigate the role of different e-portfolios in English language education such as writing e-portfolios, reading e-portfolios, or speaking e-portfolios The current research aims at examining the impact of

speaking e-portfolio on learner autonomy and EFL students’ speaking

achievement The conceptual framework of the study was established by drawing the thread between learner autonomy promoting principles and e-portfolio aspects

A speaking e-portfolio system was developed on Moodle software to create a learning model that enhances learner autonomy and students’ achievement in learning speaking skills A quasi-experimental design was conducted with thirty undergraduate Vietnamese students in two groups over a fifteen-week semester Data collected from the questionnaires on learner autonomy revealed promoting impact of speaking e-portfolios on learner autonomy dimensions However,

statistical evidence from speaking pre-test and post-tests illustrated that even though speaking e-portfolios could improve students’ speaking achievement, the effect of speaking e-portfolios on students’ speaking achievement did not differ from that of the traditional learning method Certain reasons were suggested to contribute to these results First, the interactive platform of speaking e-portfolios could make the learning process visible to students Second, self-reflection and peer-reflection guidelines could increase learner involvement, and reflective

thinking, thus rendering students more autonomous However, some extraneous factors such as insufficient intervention time, students’ dampened motivation, their unfamiliarity with virtual learning and limited access to technological equipment aggravated students’ experience with speaking e-portfolios Recommendations in terms of preparing technological infrastructure, training students, and designing and developing speaking e-portfolios were also suggested

CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION

Information technology, especially the World Wide Web, has been making

dramatic changes in human lives by flatting the world and bringing people from distant territories closer in cyber space for numerous diverse performances In the field of education, technological tools such as social network, social media, or web 2.0 have been supporting multi-dimensional interactions among learners and

teachers “through both synchronous and asynchronous channels”, thus opening

“new avenues” for learning and teaching to be undertaken regardless of temporal confinement of traditional classrooms (Aliweh, 2011, p 92) Such

spatio-influence of information technology appears to well match with the current

pedagogical landscape where constructivist teaching practice is being embraced in tandem with behaviorism (Alawdat, 2013) According to behaviorists, learning typically occurred through one-way transmission of knowledge from teachers to learners, and was then accessed via traditional exams When the pendulum has swung to the constructivist end, learning has been regarded as an individualized and active process nourished through learners’ “cognitive and social development” within supportive community of teachers, peers and parents (Alawdat, 2013, p 339; Özdemir-Çağatay’s, 2012) Accordingly, training learners to build up self-monitoring, reflecting and self-evaluating skills becomes essential to help them maximize learning efficiency and reach the highest potential within their Zone of Proximal Development (Vygotsky, 1978; Yudabankan, 2011)

Among different learning and assessing models applied, portfolios introduced to language education in the early eighties seemed to fit the contemporary

pedagogical scenario (Grant, 2010) They are purposeful collections of students’ work exhibiting their efforts, progress, and achievement These collections include students’ participation in selecting content, the criteria for selection, the criteria for judging merit, and evidence of students’ reflection on their learning (Paulson, Paulson & Meyer, 1991) With this structure, portfolios are believed to be

beneficial to autonomous learning and academic development (Tran, 2011) These

traditional portfolios were mainly collections of students’ learning artifacts in general English courses or writing courses – constituting English portfolios and writing portfolios, respectively

Under far-reaching influence of information technology, e-portfolios have been created as an indispensable alternative to its original paper version Learners’ work

is now stored on CDs, VCDs or in a virtual space such as websites instead of folders of paper (Aliweh, 2011) Accordingly, besides learning artifacts as written texts and pictures, e-portfolios enable the inclusion of students’ oral performance into the digital collection That has paved the way for the advent of speaking e-portfolios Since its creation, speaking e-portfolios have become appealing to English language pedagogical attempts and research worldwide (Cepik &

Yastibas, 2013; Hsu, Wang, & Comac, 2008; Huang & Hung, 2010; Çağatay’s, 2012) It is suggested from the previous research that speaking e-

Özdemir-portfolios have critical impacts on students’ learning of speaking skills For

instance, Hsu, Wang, and Comac’s (2008) study revealed that using audio blog increased students’ interactions, and confidence in using English Other speaking e-portfolio models implemented in Cepik and Yastibas’s (2013) and Huang and Hung’s (2010) research could improve students’ speaking performance in terms of syntactic quality and lexical richness

Beside evidence of language development, experiments on speaking e-portfolios also revealed positive impacts of this digital learning tool on learner autonomy development Research has showed that speaking e-portfolios enhanced different aspects of learner autonomy Hsu, Wang, and Comac (2008) pointed out that

speaking e-portfolios could increase students’ sense of control over learning

Özdemir-Çağatay’s (2012) speaking portfolios could facilitate students to monitor their learning, and self-correct their mistakes Another variant of speaking e-

portfolios used in Cepik and Yastibas’s (2013) study could heighten students’ awareness of learning process

self-In Vietnam, despite increased interest in using this learning tool in language

classrooms, empirical evidence about its effects is still limited In 2012, Cao

conducted a small scale experiment with speaking e-portfolios on Facebook

platform However, the study was confined to examine the role of this digital tool

to students’ learning of speaking skills Further investigation into the role of

speaking e-portfolios on learner autonomy and students’ learning of speaking skills

is essential to provide insights about the incorporation of this learning tool in the local context To understand the need for that pedagogical attempt, it is essential to discuss the situation of teaching English and English oral skills in the general and specific context of the study

1.1 Context of the study

1.1.1 The general context of the study

Since the 1990s, English has become “the most favored foreign language in

Vietnam” (Dang, 2012, p.9) Different modifications to English language teaching practice have been carried out in order to improve Vietnamese students’ English competence Traditionally, English lessons used to be shaped by grammar-

translation approach which emphasizes the mastery of English grammar rules and structures through rote learning (Dang, 2012) In this model, knowledge was

transmitted from teachers to students Opportunities for classroom interactions among students or between students and the teacher were particularly scare

When communicative language teaching approach was first introduced, it started a wave of innovations in the curriculum and course book design, enabling the

incorporation of teaching English macro skills in English classes Take for

example, new English program at high school have included discrete sections for listening, speaking, reading, and writing skills, together with grammar,

pronunciation, and vocabulary sections in each unit of Tieng Anh book series (Hoang, V.V., Hoang, T X H., Do, Nguyen, T P., Nguyen, Q T., 2014)

Theoretically, there would be greater chances for meaningful interactions in

English classes Students would also be exposed to EFL listening and composition experience However, these changes in curriculum and text books did not bring

about significant improvement in students’ English level, particularly their

speaking competence That has been reflected in a common problem that many students are unable to “pronounce an English sentence correctly” after six or seven years learning English at high school (Pham, 2011) Even worse, a huge number of students still struggle to make English conversations even though they understand English grammar relatively well and achieve high scores in English tests (Pham, 2011)

That situation can be contributed from some important reasons First, despite being

a compulsory constituent in the national English curricular, speaking lessons have rarely been conducted properly Particularly in rural areas, because of the shortage

of facilities such as CDs and VCDs, and individual teachers’ habits, English

teachers usually skip speaking sections (Pham, 2011) In a better scenario,

speaking lessons are carried out with some oral practice for students However, these practices may focus only on students’ pronunciation of individual phonemes

or sentences by copying the teacher’s model In addition, many English teachers often mispronounce the words or sentences That not only demotivates students but also fossilizes their pronunciation errors Besides, students’ problems in learning speaking skills also stem in their shyness and constant fear of loosing face when making mistakes in English conversations Furthermore, in Vietnam, English speaking zone is limited within the boundaries of classrooms for most students That situation is compounded with teachers’ and students’ habitual use of

Vietnamese instead of English during lessons, thus minimizing chances for actual spoken English use

Another reason pertains to English teaching-testing mismatch at high school

(Hoang, 2013) While all four macro skills are theoretically designed for English lessons, students’ speaking skills are not tested in any English exams Negative backwash effect of that testing practice is evident Both teachers and students tend

to ignore listening and speaking skill in English classes As a consequence, a huge number of high school graduates cannot communicate in English (T P & T U, 2014)

As for tertiary institutions in Vietnam, situation of teaching English oral skill for non - English majors is somehow similar The English training program in most universities aims at improving students’ English knowledge, communicative

competence and preparing them for the TOEIC test However, listening and

speaking skills are not taught properly in English classes in many universities (Bui, 2006) Also, students’ speaking skills are not examined in English mid-term tests,

or final tests That makes many teachers and students focus on reading, grammar, and vocabulary exercises to prepare for English exams, and neglect English

listening and speaking skills Therefore, many university students, albeit passing the final English examination with flying color, still fall short of spoken English standard for simple communicative purposes

Other sources of problems to be acknowledged here are related to constraints in physical conditions and internal budgets for English training program First, large, and heterogeneous classes bring more challenges for teachers to organize speaking activities Thus, it is not easy for teachers to find a balance in communication between a group of students who almost know nothing about English and another group who know a lot (Bui, 2006) Second, limited budgets means low wage for invited teachers of English That can lead to teachers’ weak commitment to their teaching practice Therefore, instead of trying to improve students’ communicative competence, the teacher just provide grammar or reading exercises to help students prepare for the English test

Let’s now turn the spotlight on university students themselves It seems that

students’ bad habits and experience in learning speaking skills at high school further intensify their difficulties in improving English oral performance at

university In addition, as already mentioned, most Vietnamese students are shy and nervous about making mistakes in front of others That leads to their hesitation

in and even withrawal from participating in speaking activities However, it is believed that the chief cause for students’ failures of learning is lacking autonomy (N D, 2011) This author argued that if students are not autonomous, they can

hardly be succesful in learning no matter how many favourable learning conditions are established for them

In fact, developing learner autonomy has become the cornerstone in pedagogical practice to train independent, responsible and qualified workforce in Vietnam The importance of learner autonomy in learning foreign language has been

acknowledged by Vietnamese teachers and researchers (Dang, 2012; Le, 2013; Nguyen, 2009) However, a recent study conducted by a group of lecturers at Can Tho University showed that the concept of learner autonomy is still unfamiliar to many Vietnamese teachers and learners (Nguyen, Chung, Truong, Pham, 2014) Among different educational reforms undertaken recently, integrating information technology in language teaching is considered compatible with learner autonomy promoting purposes, particularly in the globalization era MOET Deputy Minister Nguyen Vinh Hien’s also emphasizes an urgent need to apply information

technology to improve English teaching and learning outcomes, especially for students’ English speaking and listening skills in Vietnam (T T, 2015) However, the incorporation of technology in teaching English oral skills is not consistent across institutions due to incomparable technological infrastructures and

curriculum design The following section will discuss in more depth the specific context of the study in relation to her technological infrastructures, and English training program, and the human factors involved

1.1.2 The specific context of the study

With a great concern about improving English teaching and learning outcomes by enhancing learner autonomy and students’ achievement in learning English, the study attempts to apply a technological advancement in English classes at a local university This is a special public university in the South of Vietnam specializing

in training human force for Oil and Gas industry Despite being funded by a large national economic group in Vietnam, the university experienced many hardships in her initial establishment process At the time when the study was conducted, the university had to resort to using infrastructure of a neighboring college Therefore, facilities in classroom were confined to whiteboard, and movable table rows

Projectors were also available to be delivered to classrooms at registered time slots A computer room was installed for computing classes only

At this university, English training program accounts for 42 credits The learning outcomes of English program is an equivalence of IELTS 5.5 score English

training program of the school is designed with five consecutive courses divided into three separate phases The first two phases are General English training phases and Academic English training phase covering the first four English courses The

final course is IELTs preparation As for the textbooks, New English File

(beginner, elementary, and pre-intermediate level) (Oxenden, Latham-Koenig, & Seligson, 2004) are used for the two General English courses - English 1, and

English 2 courses Q-skills for success (Book 3, and 4) (Gramer, Lynn, & Ward,

2010) are used for two Academic English courses – English 3, and English 4

courses IELTS Express: Intermediate Coursebook (Hallows, Lisboa, & Unwin,

2005) is used for IELTS preparation course These text books all cover four skills, namely listening, speaking, reading, and writing As English program is designed with the orientation of teaching integrated skills, each English course is further divided into Speaking - Listening course, and Reading – Writing course At the end of the semester, students’ learning is assessed through four separate tests – listening, speaking, reading and writing Test papers are prepared by lecturers of English, and are then approved by Head of English Department

Concerning the human factors involved in the English training program, almost all teachers of English at the university are well-trained and qualified for their

teaching job They all achieved 7.5 scores in the IELTS test Some of them

attained their Master degree in Teaching English for Speakers of Other Languages

in English – speaking countries In addition, they are all committed to use

communicative teaching approach in English lessons Beside being responsible and enthusiastic during class time, they are mostly supportive to and approachable for their students outside the class Besides English lecturers, the Board of Rector

is highly determined in ensuring English teaching and learning quality They have sponsored different programs and activities to improve the teacher’s qualification

and create English-speaking environment for students Moreover, they have been spending huge financial investment on establishing better facilities for English teaching and learning practice For instance, two well-equipped language

laboratory rooms with computers, headphone and a modern monitor system for teachers have just been established Besides, English blended learning model had also been planned to start in 2015 with the construction of E-learning system on Moodle platform

Let’s now turn the discussion on non-English major students at the university They are admitted to the university with widely mixed English ability Some of them have relatively good command of English while many others are at low English level Some students even start learning English again at university To cater for students’ mixed abilities, small and homogeneous classes are organized to gather students of relatively comparable English level Despite this classification, and innovative teaching methods applied in English lessons, many students have still had various challenges in achieving the target learning outcome An obvious illustration for that is the huge number of unsuccessful candidates in the internal IELTS tests consecutively organized in 2014, and 2015 They accounted for sixty-nine percent, and fifty-seven percent of the total test takers, respectively Among the four language skills tested, speaking was consistently the worst performed by students

Common problems in students’ speaking performance are related to their failure to develop relevant ideas, maintain fluent speech, and use topic-specific vocabulary and collocations Reflecting on General and Academic English phases, many students also have their own difficulties in mastering English speaking skills That can be attributed from students’ inappropriate habit of learning speaking skills from high school In addition, their problem with speaking skills can also stem in their inability to plan, monitor their self-study, evaluate their performance, and keep track of their own improvement in learning speaking skill In order word, many students seemingly fail to conduct their self-study to improve their speaking achievement in each speaking course Motivated by the need to better this

situation, the current study attempts to use speaking e-portfolios to improve

students’ autonomous learning capabilities and students’ speaking achievement

1.2 Aims of the study

This study sets out to examine the extent to which learner autonomy is promoted

by speaking e-portfolio incorporation Besides, this study aims at exploring the impact of speaking e-portfolio on students’ achievement in learning speaking skills

1.3 Research questions

To fulfill these aims, the study sought answer to the following questions:

1 To what extent do speaking e-portfolios improve learner autonomy dimensions, namely Learner Involvement, Appropriate Target Language Use, and Learner Reflection?

2 What are the impacts of speaking e-portfolios on students’ speaking achievement?

1.4 Significance of the study

The effects of speaking e-portfolios have been widely suggested by international researchers (Cepik & Yastibas, 2013; Hsu, Wang, & Comac, 2008; Huang & Hung, 2010; Özdemir-Çağatay’s, 2012) However, there has been limited

empirical evidence suggested for the Vietnamese context In 2012, Cao

investigated the impact of speaking e-portfolio constructed on Facebook platform

on students’ speaking skills In an attempt to further the previous research

nationwide and worldwide, this study will examine the role of speaking

e-portfolios to learner autonomy and students’ speaking achievement This may enrich the current literature by presenting the thread between e-portfolio

components and learner autonomy promoting principles Also, findings of the study may add some new dimensions to the current literature on conceptualizing learner autonomy Moreover, the results may also provide essential evidence to support the discussion on how to use speaking e-portfolios in the examined context

as well as similar English teaching contexts in the country

At the examined context, the study is expected to shed lights on incorporating portfolios in EFL speaking classes Moreover, as speaking e-portfolios will be constructed on Moodle software – an identical platform with the university E-learning system, the study can be considered the pioneer of blended learning

model at this university Thus, discussion on the pros and cons of this speaking portfolio design, the underlying teaching methodology, and virtual class

e-management issues will possibly illuminate the way towards preparation for

successful English blended learning model intentionally to be implemented in the near future at the examined context

1.5 Scope of the study

The study focuses on exploring the extent to which different dimensions of learner autonomy is enhanced, and whether or not students’ achievement in learning

speaking skills is supported by speaking e-portfolio incorporation within one

fifteen-week semester That is to say, this study is confined to look at the

immediate, not long-term impact of speaking e-portfolios on learner autonomy and speaking achievement Also, beside investigating the improvement of learner autonomy dimensions, the project will just inspect students’ overall achievement

in learning EFL speaking skills, not specific speech qualities performed by

students in their achievement tests Another delimitation of the study is that it will not examine students’ attitude or opinions about the incorporation of this speaking e-portfolio model Therefore, findings of the study will be reasoned based on the author’ experience and reflection on e-portfolio construction and implementation process In short, the study will restrict itself to gauge the development of learner autonomy aspects, and students’ overall speaking achievement under the

immediate impact of speaking e-portfolio incorporation

1.6 Organization of the study

This paper included five chapters Chapter 1 introduces the general and specific contexts of the study which necessitate the need to carry out the current research It

also introduces the research aims, research questions, significance of the study, scope of the study, and organization of the paper Chapter 2 provides a critical review of the relevant literature It starts with a review of e-portfolios in language education This chapter also presents some issues such as classification,

components, benefits, and challenges of using e-portfolios Then it summarizes different speaking e-portfolios models that were implemented in a corpora of recent research Then another section in this chapter operationalizes the concept of learner autonomy, reviews different versions of learner autonomy, and presents learner autonomy promoting practice employed in the current study In the

remainder of this chapter, the conceptual framework of this study is proposed with clarification on the principles underlying the framework Chapter 3 restates the research questions, the research design, the participants, the research instruments, data collection procedure, and data analysis procedure of the study Chapter 4 reports the results of the study and discusses the results in relation to previous studies Chapter 5 presents the conclusion of the study, pedagogical

recommendations for implementing speaking e-portfolios, limitations, and

contributions of the research Suggestions for further research are also proposed in this chapter

CHAPTER 2: LITERATURE REVIEW 2.1 E-portfolios in language education

Portfolios have appeared in various professions as collections of representative performance and evidence of personal vocational competence and development over time In the field of education, portfolios are not only a resource file of

students’ work, but also a space where students’ efforts can be clearly manifested

in the continuing revision and improvement they made on their first products Portfolios in education are purposeful collection of student work that exhibits

student’s efforts, progress, and achievement in one or more areas The collection must include student participation in selecting contents, the criteria for selection, the criteria for judging merit, and evidence of student reflection (Paulson, Paulson,

& Meyer, 1991)

Since 1990s, the information economy stipulates contemporary pedagogy to focus more on active learning as the passive way “can no longer provide critical skills needed in the educated workforce” (Carmen & Christine, 2006, p.37) In such landscape, e-portfolios have been introduced to the field of education in tandem with the traditional paper portfolios Ever since then, e-portfolios have been

considered as an essential educational tool to promote students’ active learning in collaborative environment They have in part accelerated the dynamization of the educational environment

2.1.1 Definition of e-portfolios

Various definitions on e-portfolios have been put forwards in line with the context where they are implemented, their educational purposes, and target audience As defined by The National Learning Infrastructure Initiative (2003, cited Barrett & Carney, 2005), e-portfolios are:

A collection of authentic and diverse evidence, drawn from a large archive representing what a person or organization has learned over time, on which the person or organization has reflected and designed for presentation to one or more audiences for a particular rhetorical purpose (p.1)

This definition suggests that an e-portfolio is the place to collect, reflect on, and present the evidence of a student’s learning Following a more technical direction, Cambridge (2003) defined e-portfolios as students’ collection of learning artifacts which are collected, and interpreted Similarly, Barrette (2005) considered e-

portfolios as digital containers of structured context for audio-visual artifacts in many media types such as audio, video, graphic, text to organize their learning evidence for future reference to the established goals

Drawing on other researchers’ work, Moritz and Christie (2005, cited in Carmean

& Christie, 2006) considers learners’ cognitive and affective factors defining portfolios as tools to enhance students’ skills of self-analyzing, goal setting, self-motivation This pedagogical tool is expected to develop learners’ reflective

e-agency, and monitor and improve teacher’s instruction (Benson & Smith, 1998; Galley, 2000; Graves, 1992, cited in Carmean & Christie, 2006) As for Change &

Wu (2012, cited in Soliman & Wahba, 2014, p 2), e-portfolios are “tools for collecting students’ work over a period of time”; they demonstrates “student self-reflection and participation in selecting contents and creating rubrics for

evaluation” What is implicit in this definition is students’ ownership of their own e-portfolios concerning what to collect, how to judge the quality of the collection, and how to improve its quality

It can be seen that there are no generally accepted definition of e-portfolios which,

as mentioned above, is shaped by where these e-portfolios are implemented, for what purposes they aims at achieving, and to whom they will be presented That,

in turn, reflects the versatile nature of e-portfolios which consents their use for numerous diverse pedagogical goals from teaching, learning, to assessing, and even marketing students to the wider world

2.1.2 Classification of e-portfolios

As suggested by Rolheiser, Bower, and Stevahn (2000), there are generally two

broad purposes for teachers, and researchers to implement portfolios That

constitutes two major types of portfolios, namely process and product portfolios

Product portfolios which are also called display or showcase portfolios aiming at

documenting students’ work, encourage the improvements of students’

self-evaluation ability, and exhibit learners’ best work during a language course

(Yurdabakan, 2011) Process portfolios or growth portfolios assess students’

sustained works, provide a window to students’ mind as well as teachers’ teaching (Stefanakis, 2002), and monitor students’ progress (O’Malley & Pierce, 1996) They display evidences of students’ efforts, success, failures, and development The most significant incentive for process portfolios pertains to the possibility of learners to recognize their development and the underlying reasons of that growth

Similar to paper portfolio, e-portfolios are created with a predetermined purpose that identifies the nature of students’ artifacts collected Depending on particular

purposes, e-portfolios are classified into three major types – product, process, and

assessment e-portfolios (Stefani, Manson & Pegler, 2007) Product e-portfolios

also called showcase e-portfolios aiming at displaying students’ work, fostering

their self-evaluation ability, and exhibiting their best work during a language

course (Rolheiser et al., 2000; Yurdabakan, 2011) Product e-portfolios are also

the publication of graduates’ competence to their “potential employers in job

applications” (Willis & Wilkie, 2009, cited in Chau & Cheng, 2010, p 933)

Process e-portfolios or growth e-portfolios requires students to constantly

contribute, modify, and reflect on their work, thus allowing students to keep track

of their improvement (Moya & O’Malley, 1994) This type of e-portfolio is also a measure well suited for formative assessment which can provide periodical data about students’ performance, their improvement race or learning barriers These sources of information helps teachers make timely modification on their lesson plans Besides, there is also combined purpose of portfolios where both process and product approaches are intertwined to connect teaching with learning and assessment, and engage students to the assessing process (Cole, Ryan, Kick, &

Mathies, 2000, cited in Özdemir-Çağatay’s, 2012) As for assessment e-portfolios,

all artifacts of students’ learning and development over time are collected to

provide teachers with evidence of students’ multi-faceted learning for their

assessment – a different form from traditional assessment with standardized testing (Cummins & Davesne, 2009)

E-portfolios can also be further categorized according to specific pedagogical objectives IMS Global Learning Consortium – an association promoting e-

portfolio practice in learning and education proposed a comprehensive

classification of e-portfolios according to six purposes (IMS, 2005) Each purpose emphasizes a particular aspect of students’ development through documenting, deeply reflecting, and engagingly evaluating their learning artifacts in full

awareness of the target audience The six equivalent types of e-portfolios are

classified in Table 2.1

Table 2.1

Six types of e-portfolios classified by IMS Global Learning Consortium

E-portfolio purposes Description

Personal development

e-portfolios

Personal development e-portfolios are much similar to learning e-portfolios in that they contains evidence

of students’ learning, achievement, students’ reflection on these artifacts and the outcomes of those reflection The distinctive feature of personal development e-portfolios lies in its inclusion of students’ path for future learning or personal development related to their area of study

Multiple owner

e-portfolios

A multiple owner e-portfolio can have the features of ‘the aforementioned portfolio types’ However, it is not the individual student’s collection and possession, but allows more than one student to ‘participate in the development of content and presentation’

Working

e-portfolios

Working e-portfolios is somehow like a kaleidoscope with ‘multiple views’ Each view of the e-portfolio may similar to each of the e-portfolios type mentioned above The whole working e-portfolio is accessible only to its creator, but each view can be seen by other individuals

2.1.3 Components of e-portfolios

According to (Özdemir-Çağatay’s, 2012) components of portfolios are determined

by primary educational aims of the institutions, purposes, and conceptualization of the portfolio The general language students’ portfolios contain students’

performance in different forms such as narrative descriptions, essays, letters,

projects, journal pages and entries, sketches, drawings, and observation records

(Baron & Boschee, 1995; Yurdabakan, 2011) They can also contain audio, video records of presentations, demonstrations, official records such as poetry and

creative prose, artwork, photos, newspaper, snapshot, and computer work Another essential documents included in language portfolios, especially those for formative assessment purposes, are students’ reflections, self-evaluations, peer-evaluations, feedback sheets (Yurdabakan, 2011)

As the electronic variant of language portfolios, language e-portfolios also contain learning artifacts in different formats such as written texts, pictures, audios, videos They are evidence of students’ involvement in goal setting, their learning

performance, and reflection on learning process As for e-portfolios constructed on websites, evidence of students’ interaction with classmates and teachers during the learning process can also be included in each student’s collection It can be seen that e-portfolios enable the inclusion of learning artifacts of different kinds, and in various format However, e-portfolios used for teaching and learning particular language skills or language focuses will have distinctive features Common aspects

of speaking e-portfolios will be discussed further below

2.1.4 Speaking e-portfolios

Few studies have been carried out systematically to examine the impact of

speaking e-portfolios on students’ oral proficiency development and other learning outcomes Accordingly, different speaking e-portfolio models have been suggested

in the literature Each of these speaking e-portfolios has distinctive design and development principles However, they all have some common features to support students’ progress in learning speaking skill

In 2008, Hsu, Wang, and Comac conducted an experiment on using audio blogs to improve students’ speaking skills Students’ and the instructor’s audio blogs were constructed on Google free blogging service with the Uniform Resource Identifier

of each student’s blog connected to the instructor’s blog Online audio playing system – Ecova was used to automatically archive all students’ audio clips and the instructor’s listening, and pronunciation assignments Each Ecova account

recording-is connected to an individual’s blog To record audios, the instructor and students can use a microphone connected to the computer, a mobile phone, or Skype The bloggers also installed a virtual voice recorder on their own blog to allow readers

to leave oral comments on their submitted assignments

That design enabled students to access and read assignments on the instructor’s blog Likewise, the instructor could visit individual students’ blog to “identify short-term and long-term performance outcomes”, leave oral or written feedback, and evaluate students’ assignments with holistic marking rubric (Hsu, Wang, Mac,

2008, p 187) Advantages of this speaking e-portfolios model pertain to its friendly platform and simple requirements on students’ work That minimized students’ confusion and increased their motivation when first being exposed to digital learning environment However, these audio blogs did neither offer

user-students’ chances to self-assess their assignments nor get peer-feedback on their performance

As for Hsu’s (2010) study, speaking e-portfolios were implemented to “support inquiry-based teaching and learning”, support students’ critical learning, and

“enhance students’ employability” (p 5) Those speaking e-portfolios were

constructed on a website embedded in Learning Management System – an

interactive virtual learning environment of a university During the course,

students practiced making four types of speeches, namely informative, persuasive, entertainment, and impromptu In the orientation session, a rubric for evaluating speaking performance – the Toastmaster International English Speech contest evaluation form was introduced to students Judging criteria of the rubric focus on

“speech development, effectiveness, speech value, body languages, voice, manner, appropriateness, and correctness” (Hsu, 2010, p 6)

Students were also trained to self-evaluate their performance against the rubric From the fifth week onwards, individual students took turn to present their speech

in the class while the instructor and other students evaluate the presenters’ speech

In the discussion session, feedback was orally given on the speeches Those

training sessions were videotaped and posted on the class website At the end of the semester, students completed their own speaking e-portfolios which consisted

of outlines of group speeches and individual speeches, self-evaluation forms, evaluation forms, and the instructors’ forms on those speeches, Power Point files, and videos of the four speeches, and students’ personal information

peer-It can be seen that there are three important aspects of this speaking e-portfolio

model The first aspect is speaking assignment evaluation rubric which was

introduced at the beginning of the course That offered students with chances to learn how to inventory speaking assignments and prepare for their performance

The second aspect is opportunities for students’ self-evaluation and

peer-evaluation These two forms of evaluation can foster students’ retrospective

thinking on their own performance and critical thinking on other students’

performance, thus resulting in students’ deeper learning Implicit in the speaking

e-portfolio development process is the third important feature – using English as the

one and only language for communicating That feature was reflected not only in

evaluation rubrics for speaking assignments, but also in students’ oral comments Similar speaking e-portfolio design can be found in Huang and Hung’s (2010) study Wretch – a popular, user-friendly, and free blog publishing system in

Taiwan, was chosen as the e-portfolio platform The teacher conducted a tutorial session to help students operate the blog and design their speaking e-portfolio at the beginning of the course Speaking assignments were assigned every other

week They stipulated students to record their speech on the topic that they had learnt

Students in the control group also completed the same assignments but they just stored them on a compact disk In speaking assignment – free weeks, students with e-portfolio treatment were assigned to access three classmates’ speaking e-

portfolios and give written comments on the peers’ recorded speeches At the

middle and the end of the course, students made a reflection audio to reflect on their learning experience and improvement In addition to the required

assignments, students were encouraged to include their favorite learning artifacts such as spoken journals, song lyrics, poems, et cetera

Concerning Cepik and Yatibas’s (2013) study, speaking e-portfolios was designed

on Lore– an online course management tool This platform allowed students to paste links of their assignment video, receive the teacher’s feedback, and paste the video link of improved assignments The network has interactive features like Facebook which allows students’ messages, likes, and comments on others’ posts

To submit their assignment, students first uploaded their videotaped performance

on Youtube and post the link onto Lore The website archived submitted

assignments in individual students’ profile page Therefore, the teacher could easily access to each student’s e-portfolio, evaluate, and give comment under each posted video

Students were required to complete two speaking assignments The first

assignment was individual speaking task The second assignment could be

individual students’ work, pair-work, or group-work Each assignment lasted four weeks The first week was for assignment introduction, the second week for

students’ completion and submission of their assignments, the third week for

students’ modification on their assignment according to teacher’ feedback, and the last one for students’ self-assessment The pluses of this speaking e-portfolio

model are the aspects such as self-assessment guidelines for students’ inventory of

speaking assignments, their self-assessment notes, and constant use of English in

speaking portfolio development process Another advantage of this speaking portfolio model is related to reasonable assignment allocation In fact, with two four-week assignments, students had sufficient time to prepare, complete, and improve their performance Likewise, that schedule gave the teacher enough time

e-to evaluate students’ assignments and monie-tor their progress

As already mentioned, these speaking e-portfolios, albeit varied in design,

platform, and assignment allocation schedule, all possessed three important

features For one, they were all introduced with clear guidelines for students’

assessment, evaluation, or reflection on their assignment The criteria in those guidelines provided students with specific standard against which they could

inventory the assignment and prepare for their performance For another,

consistent use of English is implicitly required for speaking e-portfolio

implementation Most judging criteria for speaking assignment focused on

students’ use of English such as pronunciation, vocabulary, and fluency In

addition, oral comments, English oral and written feedback were also required to

be recorded or archived for further examination and evaluation One more

important feature in these speaking e-portfolios pertained to students’

self-assessment, self-evaluation, or self-reflection on their assignments This not only

increased students’ sense of ownership of their speaking e-portfolios and learning process, but also led to students’ deep learning These three aspects of speaking e-portfolios are presented in figure 2.1 below

Aspects of speaking e-portfolios are somehow similar to those in European

Language Portfolios (ELP) These portfolios aim at reporting “learners’

capabilities”, making “the language learning process more transparent to learners”, and helping them “develop their capacity for reflection and self-assessment” (Little

& Perclová, 2001, p 3) The official format of ELP has three compulsory

Inventory of assignment

Constant Use of English

Students’ Self-assessment Speaking

E-portfolios

components, namely, the Language Passport, the Language Biography, and the Dossier The Language Passport is an “overview of the individual’s proficiency in different languages at a different point in time” (Little & Perclová, 2001, p 1) With self-assessment grid, learners can self-assess their learning task, or process over specific period The Language Biography with ‘can-do’ checklist can support learners’ involvement in planning, reflecting, and evaluating his or her learning process and progress Finally, the Dossier provides learners with opportunities to

“select materials and illustrate achievements or experiences recorded in the

Language Biography or Passport” (Little & Perclová, 2001, p 1)

From a theoretical standpoint, it can be seen that, ELP can promote different

aspects of learner autonomy and language learning The implementation of the ELP to support learner autonomy and language proficiency development has also gained success since its preliminary attempts (Little, 2009) As argued by Little (2009), Doherty’s English class could help multiracial primary newcomer students

to Ireland become fully involved by setting proper activities These activities

provided students with a sense of being the reflective owner of spontaneous

learning situations (involvement), and helped to build up students’ knowledge concerning an explicit awareness of the linguistic gaps to be filled for their next move forwards on their language proficiency continuum At the end of the course, not only could these primary students use English to describe their pictures

(scaffolded language) but also talk about the real story of their lives (spontaneous language) Another experiment is an English class in Denmark in which Thomsen (2000 & 2003, cited in Little, 2009) employed ELP to boost the autonomous

learning of vocabulary by encouraging students to discover how to manage their learning via goal-setting, goal-pursuing in collaborative work, and reflecting on learning Students also acknowledged their increased vocabulary volume and learned some effective vocabulary acquisition strategies Those two approaches yielded rewarding outcomes because the participants, regardless of their diverse ages and learning objectives, were able to become progressively competent in spontaneous and authentic use of their target language

2.1.5 Challenges of using e-portfolios

Like any technological tools applied in language education, the implementation of e-portfolios in language classrooms poses teachers and students to certain

challenges The first concern about developing e-portfolios in the classroom

pertains to technological issues Either teachers’ and students’ unfamiliarity or their understanding of technology which are necessary for e-portfolio construction and development can affect e-portfolio implementation negatively (Theodosiadou

& Konstantinidis, 2015) Thus ICT non-expert teachers may fall short of the initial stage of e-portfolio construction, various aspects of managing virtual classes, as well as assessing students online (Theodosiadou & Konstantinidis, 2015) In

addition, students’ perception and understanding of technology can be a edged sword for e-portfolio implementation On the one hand, students who are inexperienced with technology can be left at disadvantaged side in a couple of initial weeks learning with e-portfolios On the other hand, some other students’ competence in using technology may result in their arbitrary decisions about what

double-is useful and necessary enough to be included in their e-portfolio, and what double-is not (Dalton, 2007) That may have adverse impact on the whole speaking e-portfolio implementation process (Dawn, Smith, Peterson, Cone, Slazar, Bond & Godwin, 2011)

Another problem is related to demanding regular practice to develop e-portfolios which consumes too much time and effort (Attinello, Lare, & Waters, 2006; Hall

& Hewitt – Gervais, 2000) In effect, it takes both students and teachers a huge amount of time to get acquainted with e-portfolio design and development

mechanism, and proceed their planned work with e-portfolios in the expected manner as well To be more specific, effective e-portfolio implementation

stipulates an e-portfolio sample, and well-defined guidelines for artifact

collection, reflection, and assessment which all require teachers enormous work to complete (Darling, 2001; Smith & Tillema, 2003) Having missed one of those requisites, students’ learning outcomes may be affected as students can easily get confused, anxious of the scope, nature and value of the task What’s more, students

may need instructor’s constant supervision and support in dealing with

technological and academic issues related to their e-portfolios (Smith & Tillema, 2003; Wade & Yabrough, 1996)

Concerns are also expressed over the reliability of e-portfolios in particular, and portfolios in general, especially those used for assessment purposes (Özdemir-Çağatay’s, 2012; Rhodes, 2010) That problem often stems from subjectivity

caused by peer-reflection and peer-assessment (Baron & Brochee, 1995) For one,

if applied in assessment e-portfolios, peer-assessment may cause inconsistency which indispensably leads to unreliability and invalidity of e-portfolio assessment results, especially a student’s performance is rated with an average score from different scorers (Erden – Burnaz, 2011, cited in Özdemir-Çağatay’s, 2012) For another reason, unreliable peer feedback may be resulted from students’ lack of academic trainings in giving peer feedback Stevenson (2006) argued that students tend to resist peer-reflecting tasks because they may not perceive themselves

competent enough to give meaningful feedback on others’ work Hence,

additional training classes for students to self-assess, self-reflect, and peer-assess, peer-reflect can be an effective solution worth considering prior to launching e-portfolio project in any language classes (Chang, Tseng, Chou, & Chen, 2011)

2.1.6 Benefits of using e-portfolios

Compared to paper portfolios, e-portfolios have some outstanding benefits for language teaching and learning First, e-portfolios are superior for language

teaching and learning in that they stipulate minimal storage space, and are flexible enough for students’ ongoing revision, modification, and reflection on already submitted tasks In addition, they are accessible for not only teachers, but

classmates as well Cepik and Yastibas (2013) argued that e-portfolios can

facilitate learner-centered education and make students’ learning process

followable Also the flexibility of e-portfolios can solve practicality problem

which has been one of the biggest pitfall of paper portfolios To be specific,

computer-based and e-portfolios do not require large storage space (Davies, 2002, cited in Aliweh, 2011) They can also maximize the opportunities for student-

student interactive feedbacks and teacher-student communication just at the push

of a button In that fashion, e-portfolios can serve as virtual language classrooms where students’ presentations can be followed by peers’ and the teacher’s

comments on the same corner of the html page Furthermore, they can easily be updated and upgraded to fit students’ needs (Cepik & Yastibas, 2013), and

learning objectives during the course (Aliweh, 2011)

Another advantage of e-portfolios lies in its opportunities for students to acquire deep learning (Alawdat, 2013) For one thing, e-portfolio development process calls for students’ cooperative efforts, and their frequent communication with teachers Regular socialization in such a communication-rich environment is a fertile ground for learning to be flourished (Vygotsky, 1978) Especially, as

normally implemented in online or blended courses, e-portfolio assignments

require students to actively engage in the learning process, thus helping them keep track of their progress, better acknowledge their capabilities and achievements, and

improve their self-efficacy For another thing, e-portfolio development process can

facilitate students’ reflection through the requirements for frequent feedback, assessment, self-reflection and peer-reflection Those reflective practices are

self-believed to be the most important aspects of e-portfolios because they help

students look back at their learning not just through a mirror, but a lens (Barrett,

2005, as cited in Carmean & Christie, 2006) To put it another way, students’ reflection is not just their recollecting thinking, but introspective thinking of past events which assisting students’ understanding of their learning and foster their

“critical thinking, analytic reasoning, and integrative learning”

(Özdemir-Çağatay’s, 2012; Rhodes, 2011, p.5) In the longer run, reflective practices help students’ revise their learning, learn from others’ work, and identify specific

purposes and equivalent objectives for time-and-effort investment in their future performance (Lin, 2008)

knowledge from teachers and perform their best in the final exam to demonstrate their learning progress With e-portfolios as a personal learning profile, students must adopt a much more dynamic role, taking initiative in fulfilling, selecting, demonstrating their work and periodically revisiting them for better understanding

of the pluses and minuses in their current work, plan radical changes for future performance and even draw up a clear pathway to acquire higher language

proficiency

Another value-added educational benefit of e-portfolios is ‘the escalation of digital knowledge and skills’ (Alawdat, 2015, p.12) Students are required to complete, collect, present, and reflect on their work That familiarizes them with the new mode of learning which integrates students’ “information literacy, technology fluency, and domain knowledge” (Reese & Levy, 2009, p.3) The process not only helps students quickly “cope with the rapid development of technology within educational contexts” (Alawdat, 2015, p.12-13), but also make them better

qualified for their future work in the Information Age

The final benefit of using e-portfolios in language education pertains to its

capability to promote learner autonomy development When developing

e-portfolios, students take constant planning – monitoring – reflecting practice on their learning, which will nourish them into reflective learners who autonomously take greater responsibility for their own learning (Little, 1991 & 2004a) Besides, e-portfolios encourage students’ self-assessment of their learning which, in turns,

“increase students’ awareness of the language learning process and its implication” (Gonzalez, 2009, p 373) That can help students become autonomous as it both help students aware of the implicit factors, “procedures, and attitudes involved in language learning”, acquire fuller ownership of their learning, and conduct their self-study outside the class (Gonzalez, 2009, p.382) Those suggestions show that e-portfolios have positive impact on learner autonomy promotion

With various benefits as mentioned above and the increasing popularity in

educational contexts worldwide, e-portfolios have been gaining credits as

promising educational tools of the twenty-first century Extensive empirical

evidence about the effect of e-portfolios from previous research have been

suggested that e-portfolios have different impacts on language learning outcomes Take, for example, Kocoglu’s (2008) descriptive study which examined Turkish EFL student teachers’ perceptions toward e-portfolios Qualitative results of the study revealed some divergence in the participants’ opinions towards the

intervention With a different approach, Aliweh’s (2011) experimental study

compared the effects of e-portfolios and paper portfolios on college students’ EFL writing skills and learner autonomy development Students’ writing e-portfolios were constructed on a free Yahoo Discussion group Students in the experimental group were encouraged to use online searching tools to look for topic-related materials They posted their first draft on Internet Discussion Group site to collect peer feedback before improving their own paper in the next stage Pseudonyms were used for every experimental group member so that they could put forward

“serious and in-depth comment” without being fear for peer conflicts (p 108) When all writing assignments were completed, students published their collection

by posting all of their essays with reflection notes to a folder named My Portfolio

on the group site Each student’s portfolio featured the student’s name, class, academic year, and topic

To gain statistical evidence about the impact of e-portfolios on students’ writing performance, students from both groups had writing pre-test and post-test A

Writing Competence Scale was developed to examine students’ writing

performance in terms of content, organization and accuracy As for learner

autonomy measurement, a Learner Autonomy Scale was developed by

synthesizing autonomous learner characteristics from previous studies ANCOVA test on students’ ratings on Writing Competence Scale and Learner Autonomy Scale illustrated that e-portfolio implementation did not yield significant effects on students’ writing skills and autonomy These findings were derived from students’ loneliness in individual portfolio development process, incompatible exam-driven

teaching, students’ technology incompetence, and insufficient intervention time for autonomy growth and writing competence development (Barrrett, 2005)

When integrated into EFL communication class, e-portfolios appeared to bring about more parallel effects Hsu, Wang, and Comac’s (2008) experiment with audio blog gained positive results to confirm supportive roles of audio blogs Findings of the study illustrated students’ enjoyment with learning listening and speaking skills with audio blogs These results derived from “the ease of audioblog use”, their increased sense of control over learning, the instructor’s individualized feedback gained in “blog-based interaction”, and greater confidence in using

Regarding e-portfolio development process, there are three important principles First, students could make their own choices on which pieces of writing to include

in their portfolios as long as the paper suit the overall concept of their

e-portfolios Second, students were encouraged to choose the software or programs

to present their work such as powerpoint, and multimedia flash In addition, they could make decision on technological applications such as socio-networking sites

to construct the platform for their e-portfolios The last noteworthy feature of those e-portfolios pertains to their assessing criteria which did not only bear students’ efforts in completing writing assignment workload, but also their skills in

organizing their own e-portfolio Analysis of students’ writing e-portfolios,

interviews with selected students, and their reflection papers revealed that students could progressively “document their growth as writers” in terms of their versatile writing styles which can be modified to suit different groups of audience and their capabilities to address various topics from personal interests to social issues