[Skip!] [Why?]

AISHE Readings : 2007 Number 1
Case Studies of Good Practices in
Assessment of Student Learning in Higher Education

Case 22
Three Stages of Apprenticing Students into Portfolio Ownership

22.1 Context

A few years ago, the English Language Centre of the Hong Kong Polytechnic University adopted the use of the portfolio for language learning. Initially, portfolio implementation was confined to mandatory credited courses, such as, English for Academic Purposes, English in the Workplace and English for Professional Purposes, where submission or non-submission of work by the students would have no bearing on the course grade. In other words, portfolios did not constitute part of the course requirement. However, changes at the institutional level, including restructuring of departments and programmes, drastic cut of government-funded student places and emphasis on lifelong learning and creativity, have begun to demand corresponding shifts in the provision of language training by the English Language Centre in two areas.

The first area of change stresses the need for proficiency courses that encompass the development of language skills, as well as, the students’ ability to think critically and to transform acquired knowledge into knowledge for action, or ‘wisdom of practice’ (Shulman 1987, cited in Chetcuti et al., 2006, p. 105). The second area stems from the gradual discontinuation and replacement of credit-bearing language programmes with non-crediting ones, with the possible consequence of reduced student motivation to study seriously. The issue of offering non-credited language enhancement programmes without prejudicing the English Language Centre’s role in providing training, support services and self-learning facilities to help students acquire the necessary profession-related language skills beneficial to their future career is a critical one (HKPU, 2005, pp. 1–2).

In 2005/06, in response to these changes, the English Language Centre launched a series of new language enhancement initiatives in the form of Profession-related language training (credited) courses and English Language Enhancement Programme (ELEP) (non-credited) modules, each dealing specifically with one aspect of language proficiency: vocabulary, writing, speaking and listening, presentation skills, grammar, pronunciation. Portfolio work is an integral component for successful completion of both programmes.

The primary aim of this case study is to apprentice students into the practice of using portfolios for language learning and assessment through three stages. It involved 11 Hong Kong Polytechnic University 1^st year students enrolled in a language enhancement writing module over a span of 11 weeks in the summer of 2005. The students came from a variety of disciplines—Textiles and Clothing, School of Design, Hotel and Tourism Management, Accounting and Computing. The ‘blended delivery mode’ of the module incorporated classroom instruction (22 hours, 75% of module grade), web-based exercises (5 hours, 15% of module grade) and independent learning (3 hours, 10% of module grade). As a record of their achievements and self-directed language development, the students were required to submit a portfolio at the end of module, showcasing both progress and product through their collection of work. Some of the rubrics in the portfolio are provided below.

22.1.1 What do students include in their portfolio?

The portfolio is essentially a reflection of how much time and effort the students have put into their English study. As such, there is no right or wrong way to put a portfolio together. Each student’s portfolio will look different. Below are some suggested items of evidence that could be included. The students can discuss any other suggestions with their teacher.

Suggested items

• Drafts and final copies of any writing tasks undertaken in or out of class.
• Copies of exercises including corrections or comments.
• Reflections on their study and any achievements made after completing a number of objectives.
• Work related to any language course offered by the English Language Centre.
• Work related to their IELTS or other test preparation study.

22.1.2 Will the portfolio carry any weighting in assessment?

Yes. For language enhancement modules, the portfolio will account for a maximum of 10% of the overall grade and will be allocated as follows:

• Full 10% allocation. The portfolio is well presented with a sufficient amount of relevant content to demonstrate the work undertaken outside of class. Students have included a lot of work in the portfolio that demonstrates a commitment to improving their English. They have also demonstrated the ability to reflect upon their learning.
• 5% allocation. The portfolio is presentable with some relevant content to demonstrate the work undertaken outside of class. Students have included some work in the portfolio, which demonstrates a commitment to improving their English. They have also attempted to reflect upon their learning.
• 1% allocation. The portfolio demonstrates some improvement in the student’s English out of class.
• 0 % allocation. The portfolio demonstrates no effort of improvement in the student’s English out of class.

In order to complete the language enhancement writing module satisfactorily, the students are required to fulfil the following:

• obtain a pass in three in-class writing tests (35%, 20% and 20% respectively);
• finish web-based activities (15%); and
• provide evidence of independent study through submission of a portfolio (10%).

22.2 Learning Outcomes being Assessed

With portfolio work, students are expected to be able to:

• reflect on what and how they have learned; and
• record their reflections and plans.

Examples of guiding questions to help students to compose their reflections include:

• To what extent was the activity important to me?
• What problems or challenges did I face?
• How did I resolve the problems or challenges?
• What have I learned from this study?
• If I had more time, what else would I do to improve my skills/language/method of study?
• What do I want to do next?

22.3 Assessment Procedures/Details

Anecdotal evidence, derived from the initial portfolio implementation, raised two main concerns:

1. the use of portfolios for learning and assessment is a novel practice for most students (and possibly tutors); and
2. the increased workload for tutors due to the need for dialogue and feedback.

To address the first concern, it was felt necessary that students be given training in three stages to apprentice them into the construction of a portfolio (see Table 22.1).

The first stage relied on the use of a ‘model,’ where students were encouraged to pursue, in writing, what was discussed in class (for example, marriage versus co-habitation) and to collect related articles and underline useful or interesting expressions. At this stage, with the aid of explicit instruction and a sample, the students’ attention would be directed towards criteria 1 to 3 in the checklist (see Appendix A). However, artefacts that reflected or fulfilled other criteria would also be considered acceptable. The second stage involved ‘practising’—the students could choose to respond to any issue in writing and to bring up for further discussion the meaning- or language-related matters, with reference to criteria 4 to 6 (see Appendix A). The last stage -‘applying’—highlighted the role of the student as owner or initiator in the construction of the portfolio, stressing what and how they had learned through justifying or reflecting on the choice of writing / article, and how they would use this newly learned experience (see Appendix A, criteria 7 to 9).

A generic feedback form-cum-checklist for students (Appendix A) was developed. This served a dual purpose of keeping the tutor workload to a minimum while maintaining two-way communication. The students were required to submit their portfolios in week 4 (end of the ‘modelling’ stage), week 8 (end of ‘practising’ stage) and week 12 (a week after completion of ‘applying’ stage and end of the whole module).

A ‘successful’ rating would translate into the 10% module grade, ‘adequate’ 5%, ‘thin’ 1%. 0% would be awarded to either non-submission of the portfolio or no effort or evidence of own work. A final grade would be obtained by averaging out the three ratings.

As shown in Table 22.2, the nine criteria would correspond to the three stages of apprenticeship and three domains of development (meta-language, affect and cognition).

22.3.1 Significance of the Checklists

The checklists for students (see Appendix A) and for teachers (see Table 22.2) are of significant value in the portfolio-mediated teaching-learning process. Notably, both the students and the teachers need specific guidelines for (self-)assessment in initial portfolio implementation to acquaint themselves with the system. In Hong Kong, teacher-fronted instruction and conformity still dominate classroom pedagogy. It is scarcely surprising that changes or innovative practices are often greeted with skepticism and anxiety. The inclusion of a checklist, delineating clearly the criteria for development and the amount (or quantity) of input, will help to lessen ambiguity, thereby, reduce resistance. Despite a lack of depth in the students’ portfolio comments, evidence from this study points to the need for teachers to accept the paradox that, in fostering student ownership, more (not less) guidance and (teacher) responsibility are required in the early stages of portfolio-based learning.

22.4 Strengths and Limitations

22.4.1 Strengths

By delineating the stages of apprenticeship, the students seemed to develop a better understanding of how the portfolios were constructed, of how portfolio construction could be a learning experience in itself, and of the nature of learning being recursive, cyclical and iterative. The reason for this is that they could revisit any stage of the apprenticeship or showcase artefacts, highlighting any aspect of their experience/achievement by referring to the criteria. More importantly, both the summative and formative functions of the portfolios were accorded due weighting—summative (module grade) and formative (generic feedback and/or written comments, dialogue sustained over 11 weeks of the ELEP module).

22.4.2 Limitations

Given the small number of participants, it was relatively manageable for the tutor to examine each artefact closely and to comment on each to encourage two-way conferences and reflection. The primary concern is that there is no knowing how likely students are to apply the acquired knowledge in other contexts.

22.5 Contributor’s Reflections on the Assessment

Below are some unedited comments articulated by the students:

Choice: ‘If time is allowed and when we don’t have too much workload, writing reflections would be the most effective way in language learning … it allows us to express what we have achieved in learning … portfolio activities can help develop our English … better than spoon-feeding.’

Reflection and analysis: ‘Learning English is absolutely ineffective when there is no direction. The method (portfolio) can help us analyse and change our weakness … encourage us to improve our language ourselves. It is a big incentive for me to write a paper in English without much constraint.’

Modelling and feedback: ‘I prefer comments and corrections … I can learn from the articles, improve my vocabulary and help me to use them in other situations … the checklist is easy to use, not too time-consuming.’

There is much debate about the role of portfolios in education, in particular, the pain and gain of its implementation for the purpose of learning and assessment (Chetcuti et al., 2006; Jones and Shelton, 2006; Klenowski, 2002; Hamp-Lyons and Condon, 1993, 2000). It is hoped that this case study will help to shed light on how apprenticeship into portfolio ownership can be achieved and how the summative and formative dimensions of assessment can be addressed with the use of portfolios. Further exploration along the path will be of significance. As Hamp-Lyons and Condon (1993, p. 177) caution:

Like all beneficial innovations, its greatest benefits come when it is not entered into lightly or unquestioningly, but when critical eyes are brought to bear upon it, demanding enlightenment and thereby helping to ensure excellence.

22.6 Bibliography

• Chetcuti, D., Murphy, P., and Grima, G. (2006) The formative and summative uses of a professional development portfolio: a maltese case study. Assessment in Education, 13(1):pp. 97–112.
• Hamp-Lyons, L. and Condon, W. (1993) Questioning assumptions about portfolio-based assessment. College Composition and Communication, 44(2):pp. 176–190.
• Hamp-Lyons, L. and Condon, W. (2000) Assessing the portfolio: principles for practice, theory, and research. Cresskill, NJ: Hampton Press.
• HKPU. (2005) Faculty business plan, 2005–2008. Faculty of Communication, Hong Kong Polytechnic University.
• Jones, M. and Shelton, M. (2006) Developing your portfolio: enhancing your learning and showing your stuff. New York: Routledge.
• Klenowski, V. (2002) Developing portfolios for learning and assessment. London: Routledge Falmer.

Appendix A

Portfolio checklist for students

In what way have you developed as a proficient learner? Items that show you: (entries in one study portfolio as an example)

Date submitted: __________________      Date returned: ________________

Overall rating: (☑)   Successful (10%): ☐  Adequate (5%): ☑  Thin (1%): ☐  No effort or evidence (0%): ☐

Suggestions: I’ve enjoyed in particular reading about your dreams; thank you for sharing them with me. I also like the way you designed the cover. What does the ‘bow’ stand for? It seems you like fantasy novels. If you do, we have got quite a collection for you. Check them out and let me know what you think. Keep up the good work.

University College Dublin (UCD)
University of Dublin, Trinity College (TCD)
Dublin City University (DCU)