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………………………………… I vi 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 Alternative Assessment  assumes knowledge has a single  assumes knowledge has multiple consensual meaning meanings  believes that learning is passive  treats learning as an active process  measures student’s ability at one  measures student’s ability over time time  separates process from product  emphasizes process and product (final products are all that is evaluated)  focuses on mastering bits of  focuses on inquiry information (associated with lower level thinking skills)  assumes the purpose of  assumes the purpose of assessment is to document and assessment is to facilitate learning monitor student learning  believes cognitive, affective, and  recognizes a connection between 7 conative abilities are separate cognitive, affective and conative (students’ thoughts are not abilities considered, how students carry out tasks is not considered)  views assessment as objective,  views assessment as subjective value-free, and neutral and value-laden  embraces hierarchical model of  embraces a shared model of power and control (students do power and control not participate in decision- making)  perceives learning as an  perceives learning as a individual enterprise collaborative process  provides no feedback to learners  provides useful feedback to learners  may cause student’s stress and  reduces test anxiety 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 self- reflection”. 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