Hostname: page-component-89b8bd64d-rbxfs Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2026-05-08T18:20:44.570Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Developing a framework for using E-portfolios as a research and assessment tool

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  27 June 2013

Sun-young Shin
Sun-young Shin*
Affiliation:
Indiana University, USA (email: shin36@indiana.edu)
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

As Tarone (1998) stated, an understanding of interlanguage variation in relation to contextual changes has been a key issue in both second language acquisition (SLA) and language assessment (LA) research. Research on interlanguage variation has shown that systematic variation is often evidenced when different phonological and syntactic forms are examined across contexts. Such systematic variation has raised important questions about the distinction between competence and performance, and generalizability of results beyond the research elicitation tasks or test tasks in SLA and LA research. However, most previous studies that have examined this issue are based on cross-sectional data with a focus on between-group differences rather than within-individual differences across different contexts. Such limited data often make it difficult for researchers to understand individual developmental trends in interlanguage as well as to interpret context effects on the learner's spoken and written language data. Electronic (E)-portfolios may address this limitation by serving as a valuable research and assessment tool for collecting and storing an individual learner's language samples obtained across different tasks over time. The technology may also enhance the situational and interactional authenticity of tasks by including multi-media input and constructed response tasks. However, it is not clear how tasks in E-portfolios can be constructed to represent various linguistic and situational contexts, and how they could be systematically evaluated and scored. In that vein, this article addresses a number of limitations of existing E-portfolios as a research and assessment tool, and offers recommendations and suggestions for future research.

Keywords

Electronic (E)-PortfoliosInterlanguage variationslanguage assessmentlanguage proficiency

Information

Type
Research Article
Information
ReCALL , Volume 25 , Issue 3 , September 2013 , pp. 359 - 372
Copyright
Copyright © European Association for Computer Assisted Language Learning 2013 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Article purchase

Temporarily unavailable

References

Alderson, J. C., Figueras, N., Nold, G., North, B., Takala, S.Tardieu, C. (2006) Analysing tests of reading and listening in relation to the Common European Framework of Reference: The experience of The Dutch CEFR Construct Project. Language Assessment Quarterly, 3: 3–30.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Al Kahtani, S. (1999) Electronic portfolios in ESL writing: An Alternative Approach. Computer Assisted Language Learning, 12(3): 261–268.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bachman, L. F. (1990) Fundamental considerations in language testing. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Bachman, L. F. (2007) What is the construct? The dialectic of abilities and contexts in defining constructs in language assessment. In: Fox, J., Wesche, M. and Bayliss, D. (eds.), Language testing reconsidered. Ottawa: University of Ottawa Press, 41–71.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bachman, L. F.Palmer, A. S. (2010) Language Assessment in Practice. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Bardovi-Harlig, K. (1998) Narrative structure and lexical aspect: conspiring factors in second language acquisition of tense-aspect morphology. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 20: 471–508.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Beebe, L. (1980) Sociolinguistic variation and style shifting in second language acquisition. Language Learning, 2: 433–448.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Brown, J. D. (2005) Testing in Language Programs: A Comprehensive Guide to English Language Assessment. New York: McGraw-Hill.Google Scholar
Butler, Y. G.Lee, J. (2006) On-task versus off-task self-assessment among Korean elementary school students studying English. The Modern Language Journal, 90(4): 506–518.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Butler, Y. G.Lee, J. (2010) The effects of self-assessment among young learners of English. Language Testing, 27(1): 5–31.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chalhoub-Deville, M. (1997) Theoretical models, assessment frameworks and test construction. Language Testing, 14: 3–22.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chalhoub-Deville, M. (2003) Second language interaction: current perspectives and future trends. Language Testing, 20(4): 369–383.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chapelle, C. A. (2003) English language learning and technology: Lectures on applied linguistics in the age of information and communication technology. Amsterdam: John Benjamins Publishing.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Council of Europe (2001) Common European Framework of Reference for Languages: Learning teaching, assessment. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Cummins, P. W. (2007) LinguaFolio: American model for the European Language Portfolio. The Modern Language Journal, 91: 117–121.Google Scholar
Cummins, P. W.Davesne, C. (2009) Using Electronic Portfolios for Second Language Assessment. The Modern Language Journal, 93: 848–867.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Deville, C.Chalhoub-Deville, M. (2006) Old and new thoughts on test score variability: Implications for reliability and validity. In: Chalhoub-Deville, M., Chapelle, C. A. and Duff, P. (eds.), Inference and generalizability in applied linguistics: Multiple perspectives. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, 9–25.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dickerson, L. (1975) The learner's interlanguage as a system of variable rules. TESOL Quarterly, 9: 401–407.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dickerson, L.Dickerson, W. (1977) Interlanguage phonology: current research and future directions. In: Corder, S. P. and Roulet, E. (eds.), The Notions of simplifications, Interlanguages, and Pidgins and Their Relation to Second Language Learning (Actes du 5ème Colloque de Linguistique Appliquée de Neuchâtel). Paris: AIMVA/Didier, 18–29.Google Scholar
Dörnyei, Z. (2001) Motivational strategies in the language classroom. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Douglas, D. (1998) Testing methods in context-based SL research. In: Bachman, L. and Cohen, A. (eds.), Interfaces between second language acquisition and language testing research. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 141–155.Google Scholar
Eisenstein, M.Starbuck, R. (1989) The effect of emotional investment on L2 production. In: Gass, S., Madden, C., Preseton, D. and Selinker, L. (eds.), Variation in Second Language Acquisition: Psycholinguistic Issues. Clevedon, UK: Multilingual Matters, 125–137.Google Scholar
Ellis, R. (1987) Interlanguage variability in narrative discourse: style shifting in the use of the past tense. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 9: 12–20.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ellis, R. (1990) A response to Gregg. Applied Linguistics, 11: 118–131.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Foster, P.Skehan, P. (1996) The influence of planning on performance in task-based learning. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 18: 299–324.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Genesee, F.Upshur, J. (1996) Classroom-based evaluation in second language education. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Gregg, K. (1990) The variable competence model of second language acquisition and why it isn't. Applied Linguistics, 11: 364–383.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Heift, T. (2003) Multiple learner errors and meaningful feedback: A challenge for ICALL systems. CALICO Journal, 20(3): 533–548.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hoshi, M. (2003) Examining a mailing list in an elementary Japanese language class. ReCALL, 15(2): 217–236.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hulstijn, J. H. (2007) The shaky ground beneath the CEFR: Quantitative and qualitative dimensions of language proficiency. The Modern Language Journal, 91: 663–667.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Itakura, H. (2004) Changing cultural stereotypes through email assisted foreign language learning. System, 32: 37–51.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Larsen-Freeman, D.Cameron, L. (2008) Complex Systems and Applied Linguistics. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Lenz, P. (2004) The European Language Portfolio. In: Morrow, K. (ed.), Insights from the Common European Framework. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 22–31.Google Scholar
Little, D. (2002) The European Language Portfolio; structure, origins, Implementation and challenges. Language Teaching, 35(3): 182–189.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mehnert, U. (1998) The effects of different lengths of time for planning on second language performance. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 20: 83–108.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mullois, D. (2003) Using the ELP to plan and evaluate language learning: an example from a French secondary school. In: Little, D. (ed.), The European Language Portfolio in use: nine examples. Strasbourg: Council of Europe, 19–26.Google Scholar
Nováková, S.Davidová, J. (2003) The ELP pilot project in the Czech Republic. In: Little, D. (ed.), The European Language Portfolio in use: nine examples. Strasbourg: Council of Europe, 2–6.Google Scholar
O'Malley, J. M.Valdez Pierce, L. (1996) Authentic Assessment for English Language Learners. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.Google Scholar
Päkkilä, T. (2003) The Finnish ELP pilot project for upper secondary schools. In: Little, D. (ed.), The European Language Portfolio in use: nine examples. Strasbourg: Council of Europe, 7–12.Google Scholar
Patri, M. (2002) The influence of peer feedback on self- and peer-assessment of oral skills. Language Testing, 19(2): 109–131.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pica, T., Kanagy, R.Falodun, J. (1993) Choosing and using communication tasks for second language teaching and research. In: Crookes, G. and Gass, S. (eds.), Tasks in language learning: Integrating theory and practice. Clevedon, Avon: Multilingual Matters, 9–34.Google Scholar
Robinson, P. (1995) Review article: Attention, memory and the “noticing” hypothesis. Language Learning, 45: 285–331.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Romaine, S. (2003) Variation. In: Doughty, C. and Long, M. (eds.), Handbook of Second Language Acquisition. Malden, Mass: Blackwell, 409–435.Google Scholar
Ross, S. (1998) Self-assessment in second language testing: A meta-analysis and analysis of experimental factors. Language Testing, 15(1): 1–19.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schmidt, R. W. (1990) The role of consciousness in second language learning. Applied Linguistics, 11(2): 129–158.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Shin, S.-Y. (2012) Web-based Language Testing. In: Coombe, C., O'Sullivan, B., Davidson, P. and Stoynoff, S. (eds.), The Cambridge Guide to Language Assessment. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 274–279.Google Scholar
Skehan, P.Foster, P. (2001) Cognition and tasks. In: Robinson, P. (ed.), Cognition and second language instruction. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 3–32.Google Scholar
Tarone, E. (1982) Systematicity and attention in interlanguage. Language Learning, 32: 69–82.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tarone, E. (1985) Variability in interlanguage use: A study of style-shifting in morphology and syntax. Language Learning, 35(3): 373–404.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tarone, E. (1988) Variation in Interlanguage use. London: Edward Arnold.Google Scholar
Tarone, E. (1990) On variation in interlanguage: a response to Gregg. Applied Linguistics, 11: 392–399.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tarone, E. (1998) Research on interlanguage variation: Implications for language testing. In: Bachman, L. and Cohen, A. (eds.). Interfaces between second language acquisition and language testing research. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 71–89.Google Scholar
Tarone, E.Liu, G. (1995) Situational context, variation, and second language acquisition theory. In: Cook, G. and Seidlhofer, B. (eds.), Principles and practice in applied linguistics: Studies in honour of H.G. Widdowson. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 107–124.Google Scholar
Yilmaz, Y.Grañena, G. (2010) The effects of task type in synchronous computer-mediated communication. ReCALL, 22(1): 20–38.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Young, R. (1988) Variation and the interlanguage hypothesis. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 10: 281–302.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Zuengler, J. (1989) Performance variation in NS-NNS interactions: ethnolinguistic difference, or discourse domain? In: Gass, S., Madden, C., Preseton, D. and Selinker, L. (eds.), Variation in Second Language Acquisition: Psycholinguistic Issues. Clevedon, UK: Multilingual Matters, 228–244.Google Scholar