A Study on the Impact of Using Portfolio Assessment on English Reading Comprehension Ability of the First – Year English Major Students at Ha Nam Teachers’ Training College

VIETNAM NATIONAL UNIVERSITY, HANOI
UNIVERSITY OF LANGUAGES AND INTERNATIONAL STUDIES
FACULTY OF POST-GRADUATE STUDIES
***************************

TRẦN THỊ PHƯƠNG THẢO

A STUDY ON THE IMPACT OF USING PORTFOLIO
ASSESSMENT ON ENGLISH READING COMPREHENSION
ABILITY OF THE FIRST - YEAR ENGLISH MAJOR STUDENTS
AT HA NAM TEACHERS’ TRAINING COLLEGE

NGHIÊN CỨU VỀ ẢNH HƯỞNG CỦA VIỆC SỬ DỤNG PHƯƠNG PHÁP
ĐÁNH GIÁ TUYỂN TẬP BÀI LÀM ĐỐI VỚI KHẢ NĂNG ĐỌC HIỂU TIẾNG
ANH CỦA SINH VIÊN CHUYÊN NGÀNH TIẾNG ANH NĂM THỨ NHẤT
TRƯỜNG CAO ĐẲNG SƯ PHẠM HÀ NAM

M.A. MINOR PROGRAMME THESIS

Field: English Teaching Methodology
Code: 60140111

Hanoi, 2014


VIETNAM NATIONAL UNIVERSITY, HANOI
UNIVERSITY OF LANGUAGES AND INTERNATIONAL STUDIES
FACULTY OF POST-GRADUATE STUDIES
***************************

TRẦN THỊ PHƯƠNG THẢO

A STUDY ON THE IMPACT OF USING PORTFOLIO
ASSESSMENT ON ENGLISH READING COMPREHENSION
ABILITY OF THE FIRST - YEAR ENGLISH MAJOR STUDENTS
AT HA NAM TEACHERS’ TRAINING COLLEGE

NGHIÊN CỨU VỀ ẢNH HƯỞNG CỦA VIỆC SỬ DỤNG PHƯƠNG PHÁP
ĐÁNH GIÁ TUYỂN TẬP BÀI LÀM ĐỐI VỚI KHẢ NĂNG ĐỌC HIỂU TIẾNG
ANH CỦA SINH VIÊN CHUYÊN NGÀNH TIẾNG ANH NĂM THỨ NHẤT
TRƯỜNG CAO ĐẲNG SƯ PHẠM HÀ NAM

M.A. MINOR PROGRAMME THESIS

Field: English Teaching Methodology
Code: 60140111
Supervisor: Dr. Trần Thị Tuyết

Hanoi, 2014


DECLARATION

I hereby certify that the thesis entitled “A study on the impact of using portfolio
assessment on English reading comprehension ability of the first year English major
students at Ha Nam Teachers’ Training College” is the result of my own research
for the Degree of Master of Arts at University of Languages and International
Studies, Vietnam National University, and that this thesis has not been submitted
for any other degrees.

Signature:

Trần Thị Phương Thảo
Date: October 25th, 2014

i


ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
The study could not have been fulfilled without the help, encouragement and
support of a number of people.
First and foremost, I would like to express my heartfelt gratitude to my
supervisor, Ms. Tran Thi Tuyet for her never – ending support and valuable
guidance during this process. I have appreciated her continual encouragement,
challenging questions and constructive advice, without which this thesis would not
have been completed.
Second, I would like to take the chance to express my great attitude to our teachers
at the Faculty of Postgraduate Studies of Vietnam National University, University
of Languages and International Studies for providing is with the precious
knowledge from their practical and helpful lectures.
Besides, I greatly appreciate my colleagues and the participants in my
research because of their generosity in giving me time and suggestion.
My gratitude also goes to the authors of the books and articles listed in the
sources of the references.
Finally, I wish to thank my family, without whose love and support this
study could hardly become a reality.

ii


ABSTRACT

The purpose of this study was to investigate the effect of portfolio assessment on
English reading comprehension ability of English major students at Ha Nam
Teachers’ Training College. Participants consisted of 30 first year English major
students. The portfolio assessment was integrated into classroom activities to
explore to what extent the student’s English reading comprehension ability may be
enhanced. Both quantitative and qualitative procedures were used for data collection
and analysis. Data were obtained through four channels: a questionnaire with
students, an interview with teacher, students’ portfolios and classroom observation.
The results indicated that most of students and the teacher were in favour of
portfolio assessment of reading and its procedures boosted students’ reading
comprehension and raised their self – assessment and learner autonomy as well. If
portfolio assessment is planned carefully, it will become a powerful tool for
assessing and enhancing students’ learning.

iii


LISTS OF TABLES
NAME OF TABLES
Table 1: Differences between traditional assessment and alternative assessment
Table 2: Design of portfolio assessment
Table 3: Week plan for portfolio assessment classroom procedures
Table 4: Portfolio rating scale
Table 5: Suggested questions for students’ reflections
Table 6: Material evaluation checklist
Table 7: The impact of teacher’s immediate feedback and group discussion
Table 8: Students’ views on their self – assessment skills
Table 9: The role of portfolio as a learning and assessment tool
Table 10: The role of portfolio assessment in promoting learner autonomy

iv


TABLE OF CONTENTS
Declaration ………………………………………………………………….

i

Acknowledge…………………………………………………………………

ii

Abstract………………………………………………………………………

iii

List of tables…………………………………………………………….……

iv

Table of content………………………………………………………………………

v

PART A: INTRODUCTION……………………………………………….

1

1. Rationale…………………………………………………………………..

2

2. Objectives, research questions, and scope of the study…………………..

2

3. Methods of the study……………………………………………………….

2

4. Structure of the study……………………………………………………….

3

PART B: DEVELOPMENT………………………………………………………

4

Chapter 1: Literature review……………………………………………………..

4

1.1. Definition of reading comprehension……………………………….

4

1.2. Reasons for assessing students’ reading comprehension…………….

4

1.3. Assessment approaches……………………………………………..

5

1.4. Portfolio assessment……………………………………………..……

8

1.4.1. Definition of portfolio……………………………………..…..

9

1.4.2. Types of portfolio…………………………………………..…

9

1.4.3. Portfolio assessment………………………………………..…..

10

1.4.4. Research on portfolio assessment……………………………..

11

1.4.5. Reasons for using portfolio assessment………………………

12

1.4.6. Stages of portfolio assessment implementation………………

13

Chapter 2: Methodology…………………………………………………….

16

2.1. Sampling…………………………………………………………………

16

2.1.1. Students…………………………………………………………….

16

2.1.2. Teachers…………………………………………………………….

16

2.1.3. Teaching reading to first year English major students…………….

17

2.1.4. Applying portfolio assessment in HTTC context…………………..

18

v


2.2. Research questions………………………………………………………..

21

2.3. Data collection…………….………………….………………………….

21

2.3.1. Instruments…………………………………………………………

21

2.3.2. Research procedures……………………………………………….

23

2.3.3. Data analysis……………………………………………………….

24

Chapter 3: Findings and discussion………………………………………..

25

3.1. Data analysis results……………………………………………………..

25

3.1.1. Data collected from classroom observation ………………………

25

3.1.2. Data collected from students’ reflections and final feedback……

25

3.1.3. Data collected from students’ questionnaire………………………

30

3.1.3.1. The impact of teacher’s intermediate feedback and group

31

discussion…………………………………………………………..
3.1.3.2. Students’ views on their self – assessment skills………..

31

3.1.3.3. The role of portfolio as a learning and assessment tool…

32

3.1.3.4. The role of portfolio assessment in promoting learner
autonomy……………………………………………………………

32

3.1.4. Data collected from teacher’s interview……………………………

33

3.2. Discussion of findings……………………………………………………

34

3.2.1. Students’ perception on portfolio assessment…………………

34

3.2.2. The impact of using portfolio assessment on students’ reading

34

comprehension ability………………………………………………..
3.2.3. The possibility of applying portfolio assessment in reading

36

courses in HTTC………………………………………………………..
PART C: CONCLUSION…………..………………………………………..

38

1. Summary of the study……………………………………………………….

38

2. Limitations and suggestions for further studies……………………………

39

REFERENCES………………………………………………………………..

40

APPENDICES
Appendix 1: Design of portfolio assessment…………………………………

vi

I


Appendix 2: A week plan for classroom portfolio procedures……………….

II

Appendix 3: Portfolio rating scale…………………………………………….

IV

Appendix 4: Suggested questions for students’ reflections…………………..

VI

Appendix 5: Material evaluation checklist……………………………………

VII

Appendix 6: Questionnaire for students (English version)…………………...

VIII

Appendix 7: Questionnaire for students (Vietnamese version)………………

X

Appendix 8: Teacher’s interview…………………………………………….

XII

Appendix 9: Students’ reflections……………………………………………

XIII

vii


PART A: INTRODUCTION
This part presents rationale of the study, objectives of the study, research questions,
scope of the study, methods of the study and structure of the study.
1. Rationale
Assessment is an integral part of any educational process promising beneficial
backwash effects on the syllabus, materials and teaching (Tomlinson, 2005). Along
with the recent developments in science, society and educational measurements,
instructional and assessment practices become “holistic, student centered,
performance based, process oriented, integrated and multidimensional” (Gottlieb,
1995, p.12). This is accounted for by the concerns to the traditional assessments,
which typically fail to assess higher order cognitive skills and other skills essential
for functioning in school (Haney & Madaus, 1989). In addition, the traditional

methods such as tests are seen as particularly irrelevant to learning process (Moya
& O’Malley, 1994) and “as dark clouds hanging over learner’s heads, upsetting
them with thunderous anxiety” (Brown, 1994, p.373). Therefore, researchers have
sought alternative forms of student assessment that are able to solve the above
problems. One of the most effective types of alternative assessments is portfolio
assessment.
Portfolios have proved useful in providing effective feedback to both teachers and
learners, enhancing responsibility towards learning and bringing positive attitudes
(Yang, 2003; De Fina, 1992). Moreover, they can be used to facilitate the learning
process, encourage learner autonomy and raise learners’ awareness about learning
strategies (Moore, 1994; Banfi, 2003; Yang, 2003).
In spite of the significance of portfolio assessment in instruction and learning, little
research has been done concerning the use of portfolios with college students in an
EFL environment. Additionally, this method has not been applied in evaluating the
reading skills of the first - year English major students at Ha Nam Teachers’
Training College (HTTC), where the author works.
For the above-mentioned reasons, the researcher would like to carry out the
following research: “A study on the impact of using portfolio assessment on English
1


reading comprehension ability of the first- year English major students at Ha Nam
Teachers’ Training College”
2. Objectives of the Study
2.1. Objectives
This study was designed to evaluate the influence of using portfolio as an
assessment instrument on English reading comprehension ability of the first - year
English major students at HTTC. Specifically, the research has three objectives.
Firstly, it aims at examining the student’s attitude towards portfolio assessment.
Secondly, it investigates the extent of impact of using portfolio assessment on

students’ reading comprehension ability. Lastly, it identifies the feasibility of
applying portfolio assessment in reading courses in HTTC.
2.2. Research Questions
Based on the objectives of the study, this study sought to answer the following three
major questions:
(1) What do students think about portfolio assessment?
(2) To what extent does portfolio assessment enhance student’s reading
comprehension ability?
(3) To what extent is it feasible to apply portfolio assessment in reading courses in
HTTC?
2.3. Scope of the Study
As the title suggests, the study was carried out on a group of 30 first - year
English majors at HTTC to examine the effectiveness of applying portfolio as a tool
of assessment. Finally, due to time constraints, my research targeted only at the
impact of portfolio assessment on students’ reading comprehension ability.
3. Methods of the Study
The study involved both qualitative and quantitative method. In order to achieve
the above aims, the techniques employed to support this investigation included
student portfolios, a questionnaire for students, an interview to teacher and
classroom observation.

2


4. Structure of the Study
The thesis was organized into three parts.
Part A: is the introduction which provides an overview of the study, including the
rationale, the objectives, the methods and the structure of the study.
Part B, the development, is the main part with three chapters. Chapter 1
conceptualizes the issues and theories of reading comprehension, reasons for

reading comprehension, assessment approaches and portfolio assessment. The main
focus of chapter 2 is methodology, which deals with the actual procedures of the
study, including instruments for data collection and analysis. Chapter 3 presents the
findings and discussions from the study.
The last part of the study summarizes main points discussed in the thesis and
mentions to limitation and suggestions for further studies.

3


PART B: DEVELOPMENT
CHAPTER 1: LITERATURE REVIEW
This chapter outlines and reviews literature and theories underlying this study
which discusses (1) reading comprehension, (2) reasons for assessing reading
comprehension, (3) assessment approaches and (4) portfolio assessment.
1.1. Definition of Reading Comprehension
Reading comprehension plays an important role in teaching and learning reading a
foreign language. Payne (1992, p.35) defines “reading comprehension as a process
of simultaneously extracting and constructing meaning through interaction and
involvement with written language”. With the same view, Grellet (1999, p.3)
considers that reading comprehension is “understanding a written text meaning
extracting the required information from it as efficiently as possible”.
Meanwhile, both Lee and Vanpatten (1995) and Anderson and Pearson (1984) agree
that comprehension is the process of relating new or incoming information to
information already stored in memory. Readers can connect the new information on
the printed page with their existing knowledge when they critically evaluate the
ideas conveyed in the text.
Although the above opinions are not exactly the same, there is a common point that
reading comprehension is a process in which the readers try to recognize the graphic
form and understand the relation between the writing and the meaning.

1.2. Reasons for Assessing Students’ Reading Comprehension
Students’ reading comprehension is often assessed for some following reasons.
Both Cross and Paris (1987) and Grabe (2009) agree that one of purpose for reading
comprehension assessment is sorting. It is used to predict learners’ academic
success and determine if students are appropriately prepared for further learning and
educational advancement.
Another reason for assessing students’ reading performance, according to Race
(1995) and Grabe (2009), is that it provides immediate feedback that is useful to
both students and teachers. Students themselves need feedback to help them

4


promote the improvement of reading ability, find out how their learning is going.
Meanwhile, teachers need feedback on students’ learning progress, so that they can
adjust and develop their teaching.
Pressley and Afflcerbach (2005) emphasize the importance of assessment to how
students deal with the new information. It helps them know how to connect the new
text with their experience and know how to interpret, evaluate, synthesize and
consider alternative interpretations of what they have read.
1.3. Assessment Approaches
Assessment is one of the crucial components of the instruction. People within the
educational

community

as

policymakers,

educators,

students,

parents,

administrators have different ideas regarding the implementation of assessment
strategies (Dietel, Herman & Knuth, 1991).
There are two general assessment approaches from which teachers can choose
(Lauvas, Haynes & Raahemins, 2000). The first type, traditional assessment, refers
to assessment that “attempts to measure an individual’s achievement or aptitude
through standardized and classroom achievement tests with most closed – ended
items such as true/false, multiple choice and fill – in – the blanks” (Belle, 1999,
p.6). It involves students selecting a response from the given lists and usually
occurs after learning has taken place. In this study, the term traditional assessment is
used interchangeably with standardized tests. The second type, alternative
assessment, a non – traditional assessment, is anything that does not include
multiple - choice tests and other forms of classroom evaluation usually seen in
classroom (Libman, 2000). It requires students to create a response to an open –
ended problem or task (Ryan & Miyasaka, 1995). Portfolio, performance, self –
evaluations, exhibitions, cooperative learning, journals and stimulations are types of
alternative assessment (Libman, 2000).
Bachman (1990), an advocate of traditional assessments, asserts “language tests can
be valuable sources of information about the effectiveness of learning and teaching”
(p.3). Heaton (1988) shares the same point of view that “language testing is a form

5


of measurement. It is so closely related to teaching that we cannot work in testing

without being constantly concerned with teaching” (p.5). Another reason for
teachers, schools and assessment organization to utilize multiple - choice tests is
that they are fast, easy and economical to score. Besides, they are scored
objectively, which may give the test appearance of being fairer than subjectively
scored tests (Bailey, 1998, p.130). Herman, Aschbacher and Winters (1992, p.3)
present usefulness of testing as
“For administrators and school planners, test results provide information about
program effectiveness and identify areas of curricular strength and
weakness….For teachers, testing provides important diagnostic information for
instructional groupings, for identifying instructional needs and prescribing
appropriate instruction, for determining mastery, and for assessing the
effectiveness of particular instructional units or approaches. For parents and
students, testing information is a gauge of individual progress, which helps
them understand and build on individual strengths and weaknesses”

However, they also emphasize that testing fulfills its promise only if it can represent
significant outcomes for students and the important goals for classroom instruction.
This raises questions whether test scores represent significant learning outcomes
and whether improvements in test score performance actually represent
improvements in learning (Cannell, 1987; Linn et al. 1991; Shepard, 1989). The
answers to these questions expose some limitations of tests. According to Bailey
(1998) and Smaldino et al. (2000), tests often focus on measuring learner’s ability
of memorization and recall, which is low level of cognition skills. Besides, tests
examine students’ ability at a particular time but not over time. Test items are
blamed for their irrelevance to classroom activities as well as the real world. The
final product is the core concern but not the progression of learners.
Alternative assessments, on the other hand, assess higher – order thinking skills
because learners have opportunity to demonstrate what they learned. Furthermore,
this type of assessment tools focuses on the growth and performance of students
over at time. If a learner fails to perform a given task at a particular time, s/he still

6


has chance to demonstrate his/her ability at a different time and situation. In
addition, alternative assessments provide learners opportunities to practice authentic
activities they might encounter in real life. As this type of assessment evaluates the
learning process over time and in context, teachers have chance to measure the
strengths and weaknesses of students as well as get further insights into students’
knowledge and skills. Alternative assessments also intend to motivate students to
take more responsibility for their own learning. (Hargreaves et.al, 2002; Law and
Ecke, 1995; Simonson et al., 2000). However, teachers meet some difficulties when
implementing this kind of assessment. It might be harder to score and quite time
consuming to evaluate the learners’ performance (Simonson et al., 2000). Rentz
(1997) shares the same idea that alternative assessments take more time to grade
than traditional ones. While multiple – choice test is machine scorable, the
alternative relies on human judgment.
The table below summarizes the differences between traditional assessment and
alternative assessment.
Traditional Assessment
 assumes knowledge has a single
consensual meaning
 believes that learning is passive




 measures student’s ability at one
time
 separates process from product

(final products are all that is
evaluated)
 focuses on mastering bits of
information (associated with
lower level thinking skills)
 assumes
the
purpose
of
assessment is to document and
monitor student learning
 believes cognitive, affective, and




Alternative Assessment
assumes knowledge has multiple
meanings
treats learning as an active
process
measures student’s ability over
time
emphasizes process and product

 focuses on inquiry

 assumes
the
purpose

of
assessment is to facilitate learning

7

recognizes a connection between








conative abilities are separate
(students’ thoughts are not
considered, how students carry
out tasks is not considered)
views assessment as objective,
value-free, and neutral
embraces hierarchical model of
power and control (students do
not participate in decisionmaking)
perceives
learning
as
an
individual enterprise
provides no feedback to learners

cognitive, affective and conative
abilities

 views assessment as subjective
and value-laden
 embraces a shared model of
power and control

 perceives
learning
as
collaborative process
 provides useful feedback
learners
 reduces test anxiety

a
to

 may cause student’s stress and
test anxiety
(Table 1: The differences between alternative assessment and portfolio assessment)
(Sources: Anderson & Bailey, 1998; Brown, 1994; Slater, Samson & Ryan, 1995)
Due to the drawbacks of traditional forms of assessment, alternative assessment
started being used as a means of educational reforms (Dietel, Herman & Knuth,
1991). The reforms in education require learning as an active process and
assessment procedures to be congruent with instruction and learning (Baume, 2001;
Biggs, 1999; Davies & Wavering, 1999; Wiggins, 1990).
1.4. Portfolio Assessment
Popular belief in alternative assessment procedures suggests that the use of student

portfolio can help students successfully organize and integrate newly acquired
knowledge. Many language researchers have applied portfolios as a tool of
assessment in a variety of classroom learning environments due to a need for more
equitable and authentic assessment that goes beyond traditional testing (Stiggins,
1997). EFL teachers have also used portfolios to evaluate and enhance student’s
learning. As the use of portfolios may encourage students to take more initiative and
control of learning and to reflect on their learning, portfolio can be a useful tool for
8


fostering learner autonomy (Graves & Sunstein, 1992; McNamara & Debra, 1998).
Portfolio has thus become a popular trend of assessment in recent years (Yang,
2003).
1.4.1. Definition of Portfolio
There is no “right” way to define portfolio (O’Malley & Pierce, 1992).
Arter and Spandel (1992, p.210) define portfolio as a purposeful collection of
student work that tells the story of the student’s efforts, progress and achievement.
According to Paulson, Paulson and Mayer (1991, p.60)
“Portfolio is a purposeful collection of student’s work that exhibits the
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 selfreflection”.

Simon and Forgette – Giroux (2000, p.36) define as “portfolio is a cumulative and
onging collection of entries that are selected and commented on by the student, the
teacher and/or peers, to assess the student’s progress in the development of a
competency.”
De Fina (1992, p.13) states that portfolios are systematic, purposeful, and
meaningful collections of students’ working in one or more subject areas.
All above definitions share two common points. Firstly, portfolio is a collection or

selection of samples of student work. Secondly, these samples are selected
purposely in a way that they can reveal students’ learning progress over a period of
time.
1.4.2. Types of Portfolio
There are different ways to categorize portfolios such as:
Haladyna (1997) classifies portfolios into five types that are ideal, showcase,
documentation, evaluation and class portfolio. The ideal portfolio, which contains
students’ all works, is not given to students a grade but they have to self – assess
their own portfolio. The showcase portfolio only includes the students’ best works.
It, therefore, is not suitable to be assessed and graded. The documentation portfolio
9


involves a collection of work over time showing students’ growth and
improvement. This portfolio contains quality and quantity data. The evaluation
portfolio includes a standardized collection of student’s work and could be
determined by the teacher or, in some cases by the student. This type is suitable for
grading students. The class portfolio contains students’ grade, teacher’s view and
knowledge about students in classroom.
Charlotte and Leslye (1997) catergozie portfolios into three major types: working
portfolio, display portfolio and assessment portfolio. The working portfolio is an
intentional collection containing both work in progress and finished sample of
work. Its major purpose is to keep the students’ work. The display portfolio is
sometimes referred to as the showcase or best works portfolio. Its purpose is to
showcase the students’ highest achievement. The assessment portfolio documents a
student’s learning over time, based on curriculum objectives.
Venn (2000) groups portfolios into two types: product portfolio and process
portfolio. The product portfolio is used to document accomplishment while the
process portfolio documents the stages of learning and provides a progressive
record of student’s growth. In general, teachers prefer to use process portfolios

because they are ideal for documenting the stages that students go through as they
learn and progress (Venn, 2000, p. 533).
To sum it up, different types of portfolio serve different purposes. Based on the aim
of the instruction, teacher can select a proper type and apply it. This study examined
the progress students’ reading comprehension ability when using portfolio as an
assessment tool; therefore, the kind of portfolio used in this research is process
portfolio (Venn, 2000), or assessment portfolio (Charlotte & Leslye, 1997) or
documentation portfolio (Haladyn, 1997).
1.4.3. Portfolio Assessment
According to Schrier and Hammadou (1994), portfolio assessment is particularly
applicable to foreign language assessment. It was introduced into the mainstream

10


curriculum of foreign language classes about two decades ago and is now used in a
number of North American schools.
Liskin – Gasparro (1996) suggests that this type of assessment is useful to evaluate
the process the students use to complete a particular task. In such task, students feel
involved in evaluating themselves in learning the foreign language (Tierney, Carter,
& Desai, 1991). It is indicated that portfolio assessment can provide students with
the ability to accumulate required knowledge and skills for the subject or task and
bring them learning improvement (Fischer & King, 1995; Tierney, Carter, & Desai,
1991).
Sharing the same ideas with Tierney, Carter and Desai (1991), Glazer and Brown
(1998) claim that keeping portfolio teaches learners to be responsible for monitoring
their own learning process, progress and success. When students are involved and
responsible for collecting and answering classroom needs, they learn to be
independent and autonomous learners (Fischer & King, 1995).
1.4.4. Research on Portfolio Assessment

In the study “Portfolio Assessment to Enhance Student Learning”, Sarker and Hu
(2006) obtained feedback from 22 undergraduate students in relation to the fairness
and acceptance of portfolio assessment as a tool. 68% of respondents agreed or
strongly agreed that use of a portfolio was an accurate reflection of their ability,
72% agreed or strongly agreed that it was a fair assessment of their understanding
of subject, and 77% of respondents agreed or strongly agreed to accept portfolio as
part of the overall assessment of the unit. These findings indicated that most
students consider portfolio assessment as a positive form of assessment.
Charvade et al. (2012) and Chi (2006), who examined the impact of portfolio
assessment on learners’ reading comprehension ability, found the same results.
They both highlighted the positive effect of portfolio assessment on improving the
learners' language ability.
Breault (2004) and Zou (2002) found out that portfolio assessment is a better
measure of performance than traditional assessment, it is more objective and it

11


promotes better feedback. Portfolio assessment is also proved its positive effect on
the learners' motivation (Nafisi, 2010).
In short, the findings in the above research all revealed the beneficial impact of
using portfolio as a tool of assessment in language classroom.
1.4.5. Reasons for Using Portfolio Assessment
In a number of theoretical and empirical studies in education, portfolio assessment
has been proved one of the effective assessment forms. Some researchers have
referred to the significant advantages when adopting a portfolio approach.
First, portfolio assessment provides both teachers and learners prompt feedback that
can enhance not only learning but also teaching process (Bailey, 1998; De Fina,
1992; Yang, 2003). Thanks to the immediate comments of teacher, students could
realize their strengths and weaknesses. Meanwhile, an invaluable insight into

student learning and performance from reading the student’s refection may help
teacher adjust the instructional and assessing practice to match individual student.
Second, portfolio assessment is considered as a reliable assessment tool to assess
real student’s ability. It provides teacher relatively truthful information about
students which is collected from different sources such as teachers, student’s friends
and students themselves (Brigin & Baki, 2007; Kemp & Toperoff, 1998). In
addition, it becomes more reliable when students are evaluated at various points of
time (Kemp & Toperoff, 1998). If a student does not perform a given task well at a
particular time, s/he has chance to demonstrate her/ his ability in another time.
Third, portfolio assessment actively involves students in their own learning and
assessment (De Fina, 1992; Alabdelwahab, 2002). In fact, that having to take
responsibility for the quality and usefulness of his/her own work and being given
empowerment to prove his/her own achievement engages students in learning
actively.
Finally, portfolio assessment enhances the learner autonomy (Barton & Collin,
1997; Kemp & Toperoff, 1998; Kose, 2006; Littlejohn, 1985; Tierney, Carter , &
Desai, 1991). When doing portfolios, students are involved in decision making

12


process and taking more control of learning. This makes students likely to be more
enthusiastic and motivated in learning.
However, to obtain the effectiveness of portfolio assessment, it is necessary to be
aware of some issues.
Although portfolio assessment is proved a reliable assessment tool, scoring a
portfolio may be seen as less fair than multiple choices test scores and may be
affected by the subjectivity of the teacher (Cicmanec & Viecknicki, 1994). If the
purpose and assessment criteria of portfolio are not clear, portfolio can be just a
miscellaneous collection of works that cannot reflect students’ growth or

achievement accurately. Therefore, it is essential to develop appropriate grading
guideline, maintain consistency in portfolio grading and avoid subjectivity in
grading to make this type of assessment more efficient and truthful (Hiverla &
Pierson, 2000).
Another drawback of using portfolio is that it requires teacher a lot of time and
effort to score students’ works, assess students’ performance and give feedback to
students over time (Racer, 1995; Schaaf, 2005; Stecher, 1998). Schaaf (2005)
explains that assessing portfolios involves complex interactions among teachers’
competences, the portfolio, the standard used raters’ characteristics and raters’
interpretations. Therefore, scoring students’ portfolios is more time – consuming
than scoring a traditional test.
Despite of taking time and effort on this work, a lot of teachers agree that portfolio
is a worthwhile burden with tangible results in instruction and student motivation
(Koretz et al., 1994; Stecher, 1998).
A discussion on the advantages and disadvantages of applying portfolio assessment
in language classrooms helps us have an insight into the use of this ongoing
assessment. It is obvious that if planned, managed and conducted in an appropriate
way, portfolio assessment can bring the best outcomes to both teachers and
students.
1.4.6. Stages of Portfolio Assessment Implementation

13


Reviewing the literature, different frameworks of portfolio assessment are proposed
for developing and implementing portfolio assessment programs in language
classrooms.
Johnson, Mins – Cox, and Doyle – Nichols (2010) suggest six stages in
implementing portfolio assessment. They are
Stage 1: identifying teaching goals to assess through portfolio. The first step is to

establish the teaching goals which state clearly what teacher hopes to achieve in
teaching. Those goals will serve as the guide to how teacher assesses students'
work.
Stage 2: introducing the idea of portfolio assessment to the class. Some examples
are needed to illustrate this idea.
Stage 3: specifying the content of the portfolio. What to put in the portfolio and how
it will be assessed is explained to students in detail. Teacher also gets students
acquainted with the rating scale before performing the task.
Stage 4: giving clear and detailed guidelines for portfolio presentation. Teacher
sets clear and detailed guidelines on how portfolios will be presented and explains
the need for clear and attractive presentation.
Stage 5: informing key school officials, parent and other stakeholders. As an
assessor, teacher needs to notify his/her department, dean or principal because it
will serve a precaution in case the students complain about his/her assessment
method.
Stage 6: developing the portfolio: in this stage, students do their tasks, gather
information and search substantial information about the subject. Also, students and
teacher must have to support each other as they go on to the development of the
portfolio.
While the above framework focuses on the what to do, Delett, Barnhardt and
Kevorkian (2001) provide a procedure which focuses more on the how to do. It is
composed of seven steps with the detailed description of its implementation.

14


Step 1: setting assessment purpose. The purposes guide the portfolio process and
help students and teacher make purposeful decisions about what to include in the
portfolio and how to assess it.
Step 2: determining portfolio outcomes. The outcomes provide focus on the

portfolio by describing what knowledge or skills learners should be able to
demonstrate.
Step 3: matching classroom tasks to outcomes. The generation of product will serve
as entries to the portfolio.
Step 4: determining organization of the portfolio. It helps:
 the portfolio be organized systematically so that the audience can understand
why individual pieces were chosen and evaluate the portfolio as a whole.
 schedule time for students to select and organize entries throughout the
semester.
 show student progress towards an outcome, not necessarily to master the
outcome
Step 5: establishing criteria for assessment. The criteria which are set up based on
outcomes must be clear and meaningful. Rating scale is also built up.
Step 6: monitoring portfolio process. Teacher monitors instruction and assessment
continually to make sure that students are working towards outcomes and they are
producing enough for the portfolio. The adjustment may be made if things are not
working as planned.
Step 7: evaluating the portfolio process. Teacher determines whether the portfolio
serves the assessment goals and whether the evaluation is accurate and consistent.
Reasons for failure as well as reason for success should be determined and noted for
next time.
Both two frameworks through time have proved their effectiveness. In this study,
their most applicable points were combined to make portfolio a useful assessment
tool. The process of assessing with the detailed explanation of the model would be
discussed in the next chapter.
15


CHAPTER 2: METHODOLOGY
This chapter recites the methodology conducted in the study, including sampling

and data collection.
2.1. Sampling
2.1.1. Students
This study was conducted from December 2013 to June 2014 in a class at HTTC - a
provincial college in Ha Nam, a small province to the south of Hanoi.
Thirty first – year female students, aged from 19 to 22, participated in the study.
They mainly came from the countryside. In general, they had learnt English for over
7 years. However, their proficiency is not high as revealed in their low entrance
examination results, and their learning style is quite passive. In addition, they hardly
acquired any effective skills in reading, especially with long and complicated texts.
As a result, they were almost beginners in reading comprehension when entering the
college.
After a semester studying at this college, their language skills regarding listening,
speaking, reading and writing had improved a little bit. In term of reading skills,
the students, after the first semester, had been accustomed to basic reading skills
like reading for main ideas, reading for specific information, recognizing the
reading structure and summazing and had chances to practice on these skills.
2.1.2. Teachers
There are ten English teaching staff members at HTTC. Two of them have 15 years
of teaching English experience; six others have been teaching English for over eight
years; the other two have taught English for nearly four years. Eight out of ten
teachers had MA degree. All of them have a strong sense of responsibilities and are
enthusiastic and helpful both at work and in daily life.
In this study, the researcher invited a teacher of English who was assigned to teach
reading skills in the second semester and her class, the first- year English major
class, to take part in the portfolio project. The teacher had been teaching English for
eight years and she was willing to apply the new teaching method.

16