THE EFFECT OF PORTFOLIO-BASED WRITING ASSESSMENT ON

THE DEVELOPMENT OF WRITING SKILLS OF EFL STUDENTS

AND
THE EFFECT OF PORTFOLIO ASSESSMENT ON WRITING
OF EFL STUDENTS

Writing is undoubtedly one of the four English communicative skills that create tension
and anxiety among ESL and EFL students during their examination. The past decades
have witness a shift in the teaching curriculum and assessment method for this very
skill from product-centered approach to process-based one, which resulted in the
prevalent use of writing portfolio in ESL and EFL context. Investigating the influence
of portfolio-based instruction and assessment in English writing pedagogy, two studies
into this very subject was operated in Turkey and Iran, respectively: “The Effect of
Portfolio-Based Writing Assessment on the Development of Writing Skills of EFL
Students” by Omer Ozer and Iş ıl Tanrıseven published on the International Online
Journal of Educational Sciences, 2016, 8 (3), page 35-45, and “The Effects of Portfolio
Assessment on Writing of EFL Students” by Behzad Nezakatgoo published by
Canadian Center of Science and Education, Volume 4, No.2, in June 2011.

Initially, both Ozer & Tanrıseven (2016) and Nezakatgoo (2011) notices a
transformation in the teaching of writing skill in foreign language, in which final
product is no longer the emphasis of writing pedagogy but the writing process is
(Butler-Pascoe & Wilburg, 2003, as cited in Ozer & Tanrıseven, 2016). Nezakatgoo
(2011) states that this shift in the writing literature accounts for the widespread of
portfolios among educational practitioners as an examination preparatory tool for ESL
and EFL students. Having a similar opinion, Ozer & Tanrıseven agree on the wide
acceptance of this method and adds that it can be used as an assessment and an
instructional tool (Lucas, 2007).

Citing Lucas (2007) and White & Wright (2015), Ozer & Tanrıseven define portfolio
as a compilation of students’ writings along with the pros and cons analysis of their
work. More often than not, the process of selecting items in the compilation implies
the student’s choice for the quality of their product. In my personal judgement, that
students take full control of their writing product and process by using portfolios shows
their awareness about autonomous learning and assessment, which is the essence of
the learner-centered approach in teaching nowadays. Lee (2001; as cited by
Nezakatgoo, 2011) argues that the student-centered concept of teaching was favored
over the conventional one. Moreover, Nezakatgoo insists that portfolios enable both
students and teachers to evaluate the writing progress of students over time as they
provide the students with beneficial feedback while writing rather than after being
graded.
To elaborate on the positive impact of portfolio-based assessment in foreign language
writing pedagogy, Ozer & Tanrıseven provide a number of benefits. Firstly, by
promoting students’ self-assessment and self-understanding (Hamp-Lyons & Condon,
2000; Starkie 2007), portfolios allow their engagement in the process, eventually
requiring a sense of responsibility for constant knowledge acquisition among them.
Secondly, by integrating teaching and assessment, instruction for writing is formed
(Takii & Heidari, 2011) as it allows students’ “confidence to write and develop their
skills and overcome their problems in writing” (Nezakatgoo, 2011). Lastly, as portfolio
promotes learners’ complete autonomy and their own capabilities for progress (Lucas,
2007), it challenges students’ possession over their finished products by challenging
their best effort in each writing item.

Similarly, in certain extent, Nezakatgoo agree with O’Malley and Chamot (1990) that
students’ self-assessment is the essence of portfolio-based instruction method as it
offers students the chance to reflect on their work. Therefore, students enjoy several
advantages when working with their portfolios. Firstly, they are more aware of their
learning goals and fully responsible for their learning progress. Secondly, based on
what they have already been taught, students are able to expand their knowledge and
opinions. And last but not least, they perceive language learning as a process of
improvement rather than a mere goal.

In their studies, both Ozer & Tanrıseven and Nezkatgoo intend to determine the
influence of portfolio-based teaching and assessment for writing skill among EFL
students. However, while Ozer & Tanrıseven examine the efficacy of using portfolios
for writing assessment in general, Nezakatgoo explores portfolios as an assessment
method and an effective instructional tool to prepare students for their writing
examination. The research methodologies of the two studies, therefore, differ from
each other. Nezakatgoo designs his study in a quasi-experimental approach, through
which the participants under study are divided into two groups: Experimental Group
and Control Group. Ozer & Tanrıseven, meanwhile, adopt a “mixed-methods
approach”, exploiting both quantitative and qualitative methodologies (Lodico &
Spaulding, 2006; as cited by Ozer & Tanrıseven, 2016). According to the two
researchers, by collecting both qualitative and quantitative data, insights into the
utilization of portfolio-based assessment can be explored.

Data collection procedure for Nezakatgoo’s study was implemented on a population

of 40 university students attending composition courses. They were divided into
Experimental Group and Control Group and were applied pre-test at the beginning of
the study, and post-test later. With the use of several data analysis techniques, namely
SPSS, One-Way ANOVA, and Paired-sample T-test, the results of the study reaffirm
the significance of portfolio-based teaching instruction and assessment on final writing
examination among EFL students.

As for Ozer and Tanrıseven’s study, the data was collected from 14 male and 18 female
students from a writing class at Adana Science and Technology University located in
the south of Turkey. Each of the participants was asked to take an English language
placement test prior before the course to examine language use, writing, listening and
reading comprehention. Tools for data collection employed during the studies were
Self-efficacy scale (Yanar & Bümen, 2012), assessment rubric for academic writing
(Savage & Masoud, 2012), and semi-structured interview for focus group. The results
of the study showed that portfolio assessment enhances students’ performance in
writing, which is consistent with the results of Nezakatgoo’s study in 2011.

Overall, the results of these two studies provide foundation for further research into
portfolios-based evaluation and instruction in teaching writing in ESL and EFL
context. They both confirm the benefits of the method in students and teachers’ parts.
In recent years, the use of portfolios in teaching communicative English skills in
Vietnamese universities and colleges has received quite enormous of an attention from
educational practitioners. Being a former student of the University of Languages and
International Studies, I have experienced the portfolio-based method in both reading
and writing courses. The effects of keeping a compilation of written work, in writing
classes particularly, were beneficial to me as a freshman. It helps concretize my
awareness about autonomous learning, which is the difference between secondary and
tertiary education that most freshman apparently failed to realize. Besides, having
teachers’ genuine feedback and comments on each of the writing tasks was a huge
advantage when my writing needed improvement. Lastly, the boost in confidence
gained from one writing task after another was the catalyst factor determining the
overall progress in my writing skill. To conclude, a sense of achievement and
autonomy in learning is the essential element of portfolio-based assessment and
teaching method. Should educators and learners can harness its pedagogical potential,
writing shall no longer a phobia and uncertainty among ESL and EFL students.

Butler-Pascoe, M. E., & Wiburg, K. M. (2003). Technology and teaching English

language learners. New York: Pearson Education.

Crosby, C. (1997, August). Portfolio assessment in the Korean ESL writing

classroom. Thai TESOL Bulletin, 10(2). Retrieved October 13, 2010, from
http://www.thaitesol.org/bulletin/1002/100204.html

Hamp-Lyons, L., & Condon, W. (2000). Assessing the portfolio: Principles for
practice, theory, and research. Cresskill, NJ: Hampton.

Lee, K.-C. (2001). Teaching materials and methods of comprehensive activity fields.
 Taipei: Shin-Lee.

Lodico, M. G., Spaulding, D. T. & Voegtle, K. H. (2006). Methods in educational

research: From theory to practice. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Lucas, R. I. G. (2007). A study on portfolio assessment as an effective student self-

evaluation scheme. The Asia Pacific Education Researcher, 16(1), 23-32.

Nezakatgoo, B. (2011). The effects of portfolio assessment on writing of EFL

students. English Language Teaching, 4(2), 231-241, DOI:
10.5539/elt.v4n2p231.

O’Malley, J. & Chamot, A. (1990). "Learning strategies in second language acquisition."

New York: Cambridge University Press.

Savage, A. & Masoud, S. (2012). Effective academic writing 1. NewYork: Oxford

University Press.


Taki, S. & Heidari, M. (2011). The effect of using portfolio-based writing assessment
on language learning: The case of young Iranian EFL learners. English Language
Teaching, 4(3), 192-199. doi: 10.5539/elt.v4n3p192.

Starkie, E. G. (2007). The practicum: An example of changes in the teaching and

learning process in the

White, E. M. & Wright, C. A. (2015). Assigning, responding, evaluating: A writing

teacher’s guide. New York: Bedford/St. Martin’s Press.

Yanar, B. H. & Bümen, N. T. (2012). İngilizce ile ilgili özyeterlik ölçeğinin

geliş tirilmesi. Kastamonu Eğitim Dergisi, 20(1), 97–110.