英语二语习得论文材料

Can Metalinguistic Awareness be invited? An Empirical Study

of EFL Portfolio-Combined Conversation Course

Li, Chia-Yi 李嘉宜 Chen, I-Chen陳怡

真

allison@mail.stut.edu.tw

jennychen@mail.stut.edu.tw

Department of Applied English Southern Taiwan University of Technology

Abstract

Since the standardized spoken tests labeling the scores on the “final performance” provide little information about learners? metalinguistic development, learner?s progress over time and classroom interaction are hardly considered. Delett, Barnhart & Kevorkain (2001) proposed the benefits of the literacy portfolio because this alternative assessment offers an integrative perspective of learning process and a collection of literacy achievement, taking the cognitive, social, academic context into account. Through portfolio assessment, language can be assessed as medium for communication and cognition. Nevertheless, still little to know that portfolio assessment may match the needs of EFL conversation classroom.

This experiment was significant in developing a better understanding of EFL technology university learners? perceptions and attitude toward portfolio assessment and traditional tests respectively. Two groups of learners participated in the four-month-long case study. The findings showed that the portfolio (experimented) group had a feeling of growing awareness, higher interests and controlling progress. However, more than 65% of them failed to fulfill “portfolios helped self-monitor errors” partially because of the limited linguistic knowledge. On the contrary, non-portfolio (controlled) group expressed that traditional assessment led both oral communication courses to be less motivating and conversational activities to be less diverse. And, they had great concern with teacher?s error correction and scoring system.

1

The possible suggestions for theory and practice are provided. Keywords: portfolio assessment, metalinguistic awareness,

autonomy, authenticity, oral communication. 1. A New Vision

1.1 Call for an Alternative Approach

With regard to mastering oral communication, business students used to show the desire to pursue knowledge and the stronger commitment to learning. The mental awareness of business-majored students often affects the ways they interact with others. Not only cannot traditional testing satisfy the needs for assessing the achievement of more process-oriented learning, it is also unable to measure the dynamics of business majors. Since such standardized spoken tests (e.g. interview, etc.) labeling the scores on the “final performance” provide little information about metalinguistic development, they hardly record learner?s progress over time and consider classroom interactions. In addition, traditional assessment rises up learning anxiety and fails to reflect learners? daily efforts. As a result, portfolio approach appears well for collaboration between students and teacher. It is viewed as a tap in the cognitive process of EFL students through learners? perspectives of learning.

There has been a call for more attention to a better assessment

2

approach to measure learner?s progress. Portfolio is a means for recording experiences, reflections, and thoughts. This approach can help EFL learners actively participate in assessing their own work and keep track of their individual progress. Delett, Barnhart, and Kevorkain (2001) proposed that “Portfolios provide a portrait of what students know and what they can do, offer a multidimensional perspective of student progress over time, encourage student self-reflection and participation, and link instruction and assessment.” In fact, portfolio assessment has been implemented in L1 settings in these decades, more research is still needed in the EFL classrooms. In Taiwan, the portfolio assessment has been practiced in writing classroom, centered on correction or feedback (Chen, 1999; Hsieh, 2000). However, this study would investigate Taiwanese EFL college students? speaking experiences and reflection. Moreover, this study assumed that the interaction was essential of the portfolio process in which language, cognition, autonomy might influence EFL learners? acceptance or rejection of the portfolio oral proficiency. 1.2 The Significance of the Study

3

To give a clear picture of language growth of EFL students, this portfolio assessment was limited to oral communication course. The major significance of this study was:

a. A record of student’s progress and self-assessment

It is believed that the recording system can develop learners?

abilities to review, reflect, and set goals for oral communication. According to Fisher (1991, p.1), portfolio must contribute to personal development “by enhancing self-esteem, developing self-awareness, improving motivation”. For intermediate-level EFL learners, recording the processes assists recognizing achievement of in and out of school, give an evidence of individual social, cultural, cognitive achievement.

b. Promoting metalinguistic awareness

Along with stimulating self-reflection, which can examine

strength and weakness, there has been a growing awareness of the use of comprehensible output. Lylis (1993) believed that effective learners made connections between reading, writing, and language learning. The more autonomous learners develop, the more effective feedback they could provide. It was believed that those independent

4

speakers could articulate their understanding and express how they solve speaking/listening problems.

c. Language use as meaning-constructed behavior in real-life context

Moreover, portfolios establish a dynamic partnership engaging

students, teacher, and society. Classroom interaction in touch with real-life language develops effective skills and strategies because of participating in language use for authentic purposes. In the portfolio process, language tasks give opportunities for production and students are encouraged to achieve a particular communicative goal (Swain, 1985; Willis, 1996; Guarento and Morley, 2001). 1.3 Research Questions

Based on the background and assumption above, the researcher conducted the study on the implementation of portfolio in EFL context. The research questions aimed to investigate:

1.) Students? self-reflection and metalinguistic experiences. 2.) Students? attitude toward English learning in a

portfolio-combined course.

3.) The prospected students? benefits from portfolio assessment.

5

The essential elements of the framework of portfolio assessment are: the participants (language manager), the researcher/teacher (facilitator/ consultant), the assessment criteria, the authentic tasks, and the learner interactions.

Figure1. A conceptual framework for

Knowledge and ability Examination conditions Business Students Tasks Research Design Literature review & Construction Language works Assessment criteria Evaluation and Reflection Assessment conditions and training Examiners Knowledge and ability portfolio assessment 2. Review of Literature

2.1 Portfolio as an alternative assessment

With the recent concentration on assessments that record

learner?s growth, reflection, and ownership, portfolios have been a

6

form of authentic assessments. The portfolio tasks could integrate all aspects of language--reading, writing, speaking, and listening as well as higher-level thinking skills and strategies. Hamayan (1995: 213-215) reviewed the characteristics of alternative assessment that made it useful in oral training classroom: 1) Proximity to actual language use and performance; 2) A holistic view of language; 3) An integrative view of learning; 4) Developmental appropriateness; 5) Multiple referencing. Hamayan (1995) also claimed that alternative assessment procedures are based on activities that have authentic communicative function. The language use is assessed according to actual performance in authentic situations, which the learners encounter in daily life. Therefore, through portfolio approach, it is possible to evaluate language as a tool for communication rather than the structural analysis. These multidimensional perspectives cover the process integrating knowledge and transform student attitude toward learning (Marzano, 1994). The practical reasons for using portfolios for communication were summarized (Hart, 1994: 1). It aids a student in self-assessment, a crucial life skill. 2) It is a highly effective instructional tool as well as an assessment tool. 3) It

7

exemplifies language use as meaning-constructed behavior. 4) It supports student ownership for improvement. 5) It keeps the focus on genuine, student-oriented purposes. 6) It promotes audience awareness; 7) It emphasizes written and spoken activities that reflect each student?s unique background and interests. It helps a student develop a very positive attitude. 8) It promotes student-teacher interaction and collaboration among students. 2.2 Theoretical Framework Linking instruction and assessment

The portfolios have been linking instruction, learning, and assessment (Merzano & Costa, 1988; Hsieh, 2000). This approach has attempted to realize the perspectives of the participants as they construct their meaning because portfolios allow frequent opportunities to practice authentic language use in relevant contexts and for specific purposes. Therefore, interaction plays an essential role in the portfolio process in which the “construct of the ?self? exits. As Lylis (1993) commented, that language teachers might use a “formative type of assessment that is diagnostic in nature and informs teachers and students alike of progress made” (p.13). By

8

exploring the weakness or strength of business major, students would commit to their ownerships for oral language development. Different from traditional assessment, the portfolio approach has viewed culture as an essential ingredient to understanding the ESL student?s experience (Coballes-Vega, 1992). Portfolio was applicable to this study because it made business students from diverse background willing to talk about how they learn to speak and recall process. Actually, in recent decades, the concern of assessment has changed to multidimensional, and the focus has switched from product to process (Hebert, 1992; Merzano & Costa, 1988; Krest, 1990; Poston, 1993).

The Portfolio process and Cognitive Development

The portfolio as the collection of student?s growth serves as a

medium to understand students? cognitive processes which connect social, cultural, and linguistics factors (Gonzalez, 1999). According to Hansen (1992), students responded to reflective questions, such as” How does this item show my growth?” demonstrating their individual point of views and uncovering the awareness of the literacy. And, in Hebert?s portfolio project, “Learning Experience

9

forms”, adapting Gardner?s “Theory of Multiple Intelligences” (musical, linguistic, logical- mathematical, spatial, bodily kinesthetic, interpersonal, and intrapersonal) reacted again the traditional explanation of intelligence. The forms were used to recognize teacher?s relationship with students. Herbert termed “inside language”-- what we do in our classroom and “outside language”--what we say we do in our classroom. The former reflected the beliefs, experiences, values, and confidence, but the latter was influenced by learning environment, test sores, and language curriculum (Herbert, 1992). Indeed, “inside language” is more difficult because there were some linguistic limitations that made it more difficult to share understanding and beliefs of EFL learners.

Authentic experiences to EFL learner

Student portfolios are self-selected (Hansen, 1992), so their

choice demonstrated significant involvement with speaking and listening at the appropriate level of English language proficiency. Hansen (1992) reported that the comments of the literacy portfolio from peers and family encouraged a relevant curriculum. With

10

respect to interests and concern of learners, evaluation could be more comprehensive. Moreover, Valencia (1990) concluded guiding principles of assessment: authentic, continuous, multidimensional, and collaborative. This study generalized that around 70% among the portfolio group and the non-portfolio group agreed with the implementation of the authentic assessment. Valencia agreed with the principle of authenticity for good assessment should mirror understanding and “resemble actual classroom and life tasks” (Valencia, 1990). That was, they could integrate into ongoing classroom life and instruction. Not only did students listen and speak for a variety of authentic tasks, they should be presented with the various texts during assessment. Additionally, the portfolio experience is meaningful to EFL students because the process is authentic. Their reflection expressed how and why students express themselves (Poston, 1993). The uses of checklists, reviews, conferences, student oral presentations, oral reading, or interviews with teacher or peers on audiocassettes are included. Tied to the portfolio process and students? experiences, we might collect language samples of student works over a period of time to track

11

student development.

Previous model of collaborative portfolio

Hsieh (2000) advocated the model of “collaborative portfolio”. The relevant research emphasized that teacher and learners had to cooperate together for evaluation and collection. This collaborative portfolio is also good for the present study because of the big-size classroom and limited language proficiency. Jenkins pointed out the contents of this model (Jenkins, 1996, cited in Hsieh, 2000) must capture students understanding across the three areas: a.) Affective development, b.) Cognitive development c.) Metacognitive development. Jekins (p21-22, cited in Hsieh, 2000) believed that collaborative assessments possess the characteristics: 1) Genuine literacy endeavors and a variety of social context. 2) The purpose of monitoring students? development. 3) Taping students? affective, cognitive,

metacognitive

understanding.

4)

Encouraging

self-evaluation. 5) Process-oriented assessment. Through well-designed portfolios, students can document the process of trail and error in language development. While speaking in the English language, students actively process the content of the passage,

12

selectively attend to interesting element, relate new information to what they already knew, and infer the meaning of unknown words from the context. On the other hand, teachers must take the responsibility for guiding learners to evaluate. For example, teacher could help learners set up criteria and make sure “the collaboration profiles students? abilities”. 3. Methodology 3.1 Participants

Two groups of learners, who received one-year freshman

English, with four skills training and the sense of basic sentence patterns, were taking “English Oral Training” course in the fall semester of the sophomore year at a university of technology. All participants meet the following criteria: a) categorized as the intermediate-low to intermediate language proficiency level as measured by their score of General English Proficiency Level; b) business majors: showing no prior portfolio experiences and strong commitments to their learning; c) the age ranged from 19 to 22 year. This study proposed that the controlled group with traditional assessment was Industrial Management department students and the

13

experimented group with portfolio assessment was Finance and Banking majors (see Figure 2). The research participants were expected to benefit in this study in the followings: a) the optimal chance to practice their written and oral communicative skills in real context; b) more aware of English learning process; c) promoting self-reflection through the portfolio approach. Figure 2. Experimented and Controlled groups

Group Major Male Total Female 15 40 30 45 40 80 Controlled Industrial 25 Management Experimented Finance and 10 Banking Total Business 35 majors 3.2 Design and Procedure

The process of this experiment is described as Figure 3. The

study employed a teacher/researcher-student partnership. The main focus was on exploration of students? perceptions and attitude toward portfolio assessment and traditional tests respectively. The researcher collected data through field observation, student?s reflection from evaluation form, questionnaires, and information of student portfolio of experimental group. The products of students?

14

portfolio were arranged in a time order (see Appendix V) and evaluated by peers or researcher (teacher).

There were three main stages in this four-month-long case study.

Around the middle September was the fist stage. Basing the content of the instructions on learner?s needs, both the experimented and the controlled groups were required to fill out self-reflection questionnaire (Appendix I) and survey their interests and general attitude toward practicing oral communication (Appendix II). Then, during the October to December, the second stage, all participants were given the same instructional activities. The only difference depended on the testing method: the experimented group had to keep their works in their portfolio, so that their learning progress could be detected. The performance of the controlled group was given standardized tests based on scoring and one pencil-and-pen test. Near the end of the study, in the third stage, the final questionnaires (Appendix IV) were conducted to explore the participants? feedback toward assessment tools around late December.

15

Pre-test

Experimented

group

* Self-Reflection Questionnaire * Learner attitude toward oral communication Mediation

Post-test

Learner awareness Questionnaire

Portfolio assessment ? Record-keeping ? Self/peer evaluation ? Teacher-student conference Learner awareness Questionnaire Traditional assessment ? Paper-and-pencil test ? Oral proficient test Controlled

group

* Self-Reflection Questionnaire * Learner attitude toward oral communication experiment

Figure 3. The process of the 3.3 Data Analysis

The analysis centered on emergent patterns induced from the observations, the questionnaires, and student portfolio. The classroom observation portrayed the ways students interacted with teacher and student?s attitude toward evaluation process. For data collected from interest survey and student learning attitude questionnaire, categories included: a.) The student? interests toward oral communication (Appendix I). b.) The general attitude toward practicing oral communication (Appendix II). For data collected from student perception and feedback questionnaire (Appendix IV), categories included: a.) Q1-4: students? perception of the connection between assessment, learning, and instruction. b.) Q 5-8: students?

16

attitude toward authenticity through engagement. c.) Q9-12: students? development of autonomous learning. Besides, data collected from student portfolios showed the evidence for self-reflection and the evaluation process. The language samples were tape-recorded, transcribed, and analyzed. 4. Findings

4.1 Classroom observation

In the experimented group classroom, most of EFL college students had no previous experience of the portfolio assessment. The advanced learners were more self-regulated, active in following teacher?s instructions, participating classroom activities, and responding to peer-evaluation sheets. However, the less skilled learners reluctantly engaged at first and easily got lost. Therefore, the teacher/researcher adjusted the instructional goals (refer to Appendix V): Task 4: self-selected topic good for independent searching and thinking. And, Task 5: teamwork by which lower learners could benefit from peer assistance. 4.2 Self-reflection

According to background and interest survey, it was found out

17

that student preferred communicative, authentic, and applicable topics: pop song (66%), food (58%), travel (47%), shopping (45%), and films (41%). The difficulties they encountered most often derived from lack of confidence on speaking out and listening in, whereas they thought their proficiency level were enough to read independently. The experimented students showed their stronger commitments to learning and willingness to collect their recording works.

The following tables suggested the questionnaire pre-tested general attitude toward practicing oral communication (Appendix II) before the implementation of assessments. It was shown that both groups demonstrated similar patterns. They all felt interested in oral communication courses but the current instruction hours are not sufficient and the conversational activities are not so motivating. Three out of fourths expected that their communicative abilities needed further improvements. Most importantly, toward questions 10 and 11, they had great concern with teacher?s error correction and scoring system. Still, they hardly spoke well in new context and had difficulties in employing appropriate expressions (questions 8 and

18

9).

Figure 4: A comparative study of learner’s attitude toward oral communication

Learner's Attitude Towad Oral Communication403020100123456789101112strongly disagreedisagreeagreestrongly agree Table (a) Experimented group

Learner's Attitude Toward Oral Communication35302520151050

strongly disagreedisagreeagreestrongly agree123456789101112

4.3 Students’ perceptions of portfolio assessment

The questionnaire revealed that the portfolio (experimented)

Table (b) Controlled group

group had a feeling of growing awareness, higher interests and controlling progress. More than 95 % of participants choose “agree” or “strongly agree” with the portfolio approach arising learning interests. About a half of portfolio group agreed the number of language task was acceptable, but still a half of this group thought there was too much to carry out. As a matter of fact, the

19

content of the portfolios required the integration of four skills. Furthermore, over three-fourth “agree” or “strongly agree” with the concepts of commitments to real-life situations and connection to daily basis. They had attempted to seek for external resources for assistance with serious attitude. As for the degree of responsibility for self-learning, the results indicated that more than three-fourths certified “portfolios recorded learning achievement” and “portfolios improved speaking and listening “. Although over 95% of learners responded to “agree” or “strongly degree” with “portfolio enriched the content of conversation”, more than 65% of them failed to fulfill “portfolios helped self-monitor my errors” partially because of the limited linguistic knowledge.

On the contrary, non-portfolio (controlled) group expressed that traditional assessment led both oral communication course to be less motivating and conversational) activities to be less diverse. The results reflected over 85% of this group thought the learning pressure existed in standardized tests. And, it was not so possible for traditional assessment to connect language use in real-life context. Based on traditional assessment, learners preferred

20

teacher?s error correction. As a result, they gained less control of their learning and expected the more organized instructions given by the teacher. Each group?s perceptions of the effectiveness of assessment tool are displayed in Figure 5.

Figure 5: A comparative study of student’s perception of assessment effectiveness

Student's perceptions of the effectiveness of portfolio assessment403020100123456789101112strongly disagreedisagreeagreestrongly agree

Table (a): experimented group

Student's perceptions of the effectiveness of traditional assessment40Number of partisipants3020100strongly disagreedisagreeagreestrongly agree1113579

Table (b): controlled group

5. Discussions and Recommendation

The results showed that the portfolio assessment appeared more

effectively than traditional assessment. The portfolio group demonstrated the potentials in developing metalinguistic awareness, learning attitude, and authenticity. In this study, EFL college learners

21

were positive toward self-discovery because they were able to connect to real-life context. The metalinguistic development tied to the portfolio process confirmed that the concern of assessment was no longer “the final product” but shifted to “the process”. As a result of this research, I propose the possible suggestions for theory and practice.

5.1. Sharing their stories

The results of the present study were compatible with the

concept of Paulson, Paulson (1991, p.1): “Portfolios tell a story…put in anything that helps tell the story.” EFL learners? participation and reflection played essential roles in the process of metalinguistic awareness. They might go through the stage of struggles, but teachers had to be patient and supportive to provide assistances until they could be independent in evaluating. Finally, they were guided to reach different stages of understanding. That proved the ideas, the “assessment process more meaningful” and “a powerful learning experience”(Hebert, 1992). 5.2 Inner and outer connection

Portfolios are a connection between “inner life” and “outer life”.

22

Reciting Valencia?s summary: “The real value of a portfolio does not lie in its physical appearances, location, or organization; rather it is in the mindset that it instills in students and teachers (Valencia, 1990: 340). The interplay of cognition and language for EFL has been explored in the inner refection about the portfolio process. It also developed great thinking because students were more concern with self-control and independent learning. This study revealed that students? attitude toward genuine communication outside the classroom; therefore, the portfolio process is more “dynamic” due to student-teacher interaction and learner collaboration. 5.3 Involving students in evaluation

Valencia (1990) stated assessment must provide for active, collaborative reflection by both teacher and students. In this empirical study, portfolios invited students to view their performance as a part of ?developmental process?, instead of ?an end point?. Within the sense of ownership for language, portfolios helped “evaluate how well we have learned and what we need to learn next” (Valencia, 1990: 338). Collaborative assessment ties students and teacher as partners. In light of this, students ensure about criteria,

23

goals, and process, which reflect on their needs and strengths. 5.4 Limitations

There were still some practical problems in this portfolio study: Linguistics factors

The main problems of the portfolio derived from that student comments required a great deal of target language knowledge, but student?s language ability varies in conversation course. The lower level learners showed reluctance in interaction at the beginning of the portfolio production and self-evaluation process. However, they became more responsible for expressing English language with lower anxiety after interacting with capable peers. Affective factors

The implementation of portfolio must pay attention to EFL

students? affective factor. The findings indicated although the portfolio assessment brought lower pressure to learning and an increased motivation in speaking practice, the anxiety of limited language learners went up during the same process. Teacher must provide immediate support for that. Time constraints

24

For a teacher, comment criteria and portfolio classroom management were very time-consuming. For students, it took time and effort to compile, self-assess, and prepare portfolios for teacher-student conferences. Besides, it was fairly hard to allocate proper time for student-teacher portfolio conferences and interviews. Teacher’ role

In this study, the teacher had to be an instructor and a researcher

at the same time, in order to observe classroom instruction, support encouragement, guide student reflection, and analyze student portfolio works. The two-hour instruction per week was not sufficient for intensive teacher-student interaction. Regarding the role of a teacher, portfolio assessment is suggested to base on three conditions: First, teacher must receive good training in rating student oral performance. Criteria are set up for guiding learning rather than grading the final performance. Second, teacher has to ensure scaffolding and feedback because strengthening student?s positive attitude can develop language abilities. Third, teacher is expected to connect learning, instruction, and assessment in a more meaningful way.

25

This research focused on an analysis of the perspectives and

experiences of vocational university students. By comparing the perception and experiences of the portfolio group with those of non-portfolio group, as teachers and researchers, we may prospect some valuable findings, which can transfer to similar college settings. It is apparent that more research regarding oral proficiency is needed at all levels. Due to the lack of research focusing on EFL business learners, further attention should be drawn to the construction process of EFL student?s oral communication and how much attempts of authenticity can be promote. The future research on oral proficiency still needs for extended engagement. The issues of linguistic, affective, social, metacognitive connection should be employed and explored.

References

Adams, M.L. and J.R. Frith. (Eds.) (1979). Testing Kit. Washington

D.C. Foreign Service Institute.

Chen, Y. M. (1999). A portfolio approach to EFL University writing

instruction. Proceeding of the 16th National conference on English teaching and learning in the Republic of China. P313-332. National Changhua Normal University, Chang-Hua, Taiwan.

Chu, H. M. (2000). Pronunciation teaching and evaluation. Junior

High School and Elementary School Nine-year Integrated Curriculum Teaching and Evaluation Research. Taipei: Ministry of Education.

Coballes-Vega, C. (1992). Consideration in teaching culturally

26

diverse children. ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. 341 648.

Delett, J.S., S. Barnhart and J.A. Kevorkian. (2001) “A Framework

for Portfolio Assessment in the Foreign Language Classroom” Foreign Language Annals, 34(6), 561-568.

Fisher, R. (1991). Recording achievement in primary schools. Basil

Blackwell Ltd.

Frazier, D.M. and F. L. Paulson. (1992). How portfolio motivate

reluctant writers. Educational Leadership, 49, 62-65.

Guariento, W. and J. Morley. (2001) Text and Task Authenticity in

the EFL classroom. ELT Journal, 55 (4), 347-353.

Gonzalez, V. (1999). Language and cognitive development in second

language learning. Needham Heights, MA: Allyn & Bacon. Hart, D. (1994). Authentic Assessment: A Handbook for Educators.

Addison-Wesley Publishing Company.

Hamayan, E.V. (1995). Approaches to alternative assessment.

Annual Review of Applied Linguistics, 15, 212-226.

Hansen, J. (1992). Literacy Portfolio: Helping students know

themselves. Educational Leadership, 49, 66-68.

Hebert, E.A. (1992). Portfolios invite reflection- from students and

staff. Educational Leadership, 49, 58-61.

Hsieh, Y. F. (2000) Implementation of Portfolio Assessment in a

sixth grade EFL Classroom. Master thesis, National Taiwan Normal University.

Lylis, S.J. (1993). A descriptive study and analysis of two first

grade teacher?s development and implementation of writing –portfolio assessments. Ed. D. Dissertation. University of Massachusetts.

Marzano, R. J. (1994). Assessing student outcomes: performance

assessment using dimensions of learning models. Alexandrian, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development. Merzano, R.J. and A.L. Costa. (1988). Question: Do standardized

tests measure general cognitive skills? Answer: No. Educational Leadership, 45 (8), 66-71.

Krest, Margie. (1990). “Adapting the Portfolio to Meet Student

Needs” English Journal, P30.

O?Neil, John. (1992). Putting performance assessment to the test.

Educational Leadership, 49, 14-19.

Padilla, A. M., J.C. Aninao and H. Sung. (1996) Development and

27

implementation of student Portfolio assessment in second language programs. Foreign Language Annals, 29(3), 429-438. Padilla, A.M., D.M. Silva and T. Nomachi. (1996). Portfolio

assessment for secondary school foreign language classes. Paper presented at the meeting of the American Council on the Teaching of Foreign Languages, Philadelphia, PA.

Paulson, F. L. and P. R. Paulson. (1991). “Portfolios: Stories of

knowing.” Pre-publication draft.

Poston, C. H. (1993). Theory into practice: personal voice, process,

and portfolio. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 358 476).

Swain, M. (1985). Communicative competence: some roles of

comprehensible input and comprehensible out in its development, in S. Gass and C. Madden (eds.):Input in Second Language Acquisition. Rowley: Newbury House.

Valencia, S. (1990). A portfolio approach to classroom reading

assessment: The whys, whats, and hows. The Reading Teacher, 43, 338-340.

Valencia, S. and K.Wixson (1991). Diagnostic teaching. The

Reading Teacher, 44, 420-422.

Willis, J. (1996). A Framework for Task-based Learning. London: Longman.

Appendix I: Students’ Interest and Language Perception Survey

請選擇5項你比較感興趣的主題,並在空格內打圈圈: (Adapted from Hsieh, 2000)

28

1 勵志小品 11 休閒興趣與 嗜好

2 流行文化 3 日常活動 4 電視影集 5 流行歌曲 6 節慶傳統 12 問候與應對 13 問路與引路 14 人物描述 15 商業 16 身體部位及 相關動作 7 文學故事 8 新聞報紙 9 網站科技 10 電影欣賞 17 旅遊 18 服裝 19 食物與餐飲 20 購物 系級 姓別 英文學習經驗：，學了 年，每週學英文大約 小時。我的英文大部分是跟 (自己、朋友、家庭、學校、補習班)學的。(可複選) 學

英

文

最

困

難

的

地

方:__________________________________________________________________________________ 學

英

文

最

簡

單

29

的地方是：

_______________________________________________________________________________ ＊ 檔案評量叮嚀

1. 請同學正式準備好一個檔案夾 2. 希望同學能在生活上實際行動英文

Appendix II: Student attitude toward oral communication

Strong StrongStudent attitude ly DisagrAgrely Toward Oral Communication Disagree e Agree Course ee 1. Oral communication courses are interesting 2. Oral communication course are important 3. I don?t have to prepare for oral communication courses 4. Oral communication courses can improve my spoken ability 5. The instructions hours can be prolonged 6. I like to take oral communication course 7. The activity diversities of oral communication can be increased. 8. I always can express appropriately what I want to say 9. I find myself hardly speak well in an unfamiliar context. 10. Teacher?s correction is important to me 11. Teacher?s grading is important to me 30 12. In daily life, I used to collect materials relevant to topics to foster my English abilities □ □ □ □ □ □ □ □ □ □ □ □ □ □ □ □ □ □ □ □ □ □ □ □ □ □ □ □ □ □ □ □ □ □ □ □ □ □ □ □ □ □ □ □ □ □ □ □

courses

Appendix III: Peer Evaluation Form

Pronunciation Evaluation

Class： Name： No： Date： ___ / / Items Word 1 2 Dialogue Criteria Accuracy Result of Assessment Good Bad Comment (Adapted from Chu, 2000) Accuracy Fluency Accuracy Short Fluency 3 passage Intonation 31

Appendix IV: Student Perception and Feedback Toward Language Assessment

Appendix V Portfolio Table of Contents

Language Level：Intermediate-low –Intermediate Student Name： Student perception and Strongly Strongly feedback toward language Disagree Disagree Agree Agree assessment This assessment made me fell more □ □ □ interested in oral □ 1 communication Based on this assessment, I □ □ □ hope the instructions hours can □ 2 be prolonged This assessment could increase □ □ □ the diversity of conversational □ 3 activities This assessment lowered □ □ □ □ 4 learning pressure This assessment led me to □ □ □ □ 5 commit to real-life situations This assessment helped me □ □ □ connect English learning with □ 6 daily life This assessment helped me resort to □ □ □ □ 7 the external resources This assessment helped me □ □ □ expand my learning in and out □ 8 of school This assessment improved my □ □ □ □ 9 speaking and listening abilities This assessment enriched the □ □ □ □ 10 content of conversation This assessment evaluated my □ □ □ □ learning process and academic 32 11 progress This assessment helped □ □ □ □ 12 self-monitor my errors TasDate Relevant k AuVidWrittGoal Topic dio eo en Areas 09-31 0 Contents Activity 10-1? ? 2 4 3 11-1? 1 4 11-2? 5 12-2? 5 3 Introducing personal Name Communiinformation. ? Card cation Student pair exchanges Design greetings. CommuniCultural cation Express instructions of awareneCulture how to make a pot of ss: CommuniBritish tea. British ties Comparing with the ways Tea Comparisof Chinese tea making. Making ons Listen to a short story Thanksabout Thanksgiving with giving visual aids. Culture TraditioParagraph writing by Connectin about showing thanks. ons Orally practice through peer-evaluation. CommuniSelf-selcation Collecting relevant ? ected Connectiinformation. topic ons Communi cation Radio Listen to the radio Culture Station program. ? ConnectiTape-recording group?s ons performance. CommuniPresenting to the class. ties 33

本文来源：https://www.bwwdw.com/article/piea.html