ArticlePDF Available

Abstract and Figures

Portfolio assessment (PA) is promulgated as a useful tool to promote learning through assessment. While the benefits of PA are well documented, there is a lack of empirical research on how students’ self-regulation can be effectively fostered in writing classrooms, and how the use of PA can develop students’ self-regulated capacities. This multiple case study, which spanned one academic year, explored how teachers can foster self-regulation in elementary students through PA, and the effects of using PA on self-regulation among students. Two teachers and their students from two Primary Six classes in different elementary schools in Hong Kong participated in the study. Data sources included interviews with teachers and students, as well as classroom observations and field notes. The results of the study indicate that portfolios are an empowering activity and contribute to students’ development of self-regulated learning. Implications of the study are discussed.
Content may be subject to copyright.
© The Author 2017. Published by Oxford University Press; all rights reserved.
Self-regulation through portfolio
assessment in writing classrooms
Pauline Mak and Kevin M. Wong
Portfolio assessment (PA) is promulgated as a useful tool to promote learning
through assessment. While the benefits of PA are well documented, there is a
lack of empirical research on how students’ self-regulation can be effectively
fostered in writing classrooms, and how the use of PA can develop students’
self-regulated capacities. This multiple case study, which spanned one academic
year, explored how teachers can foster self-regulation in elementary students
through PA, and the effects of using PA on self-regulation among students. Two
teachers and their students from two Primary Six classes in different elementary
schools in Hong Kong participated in the study. Data sources included
interviews with teachers and students, as well as classroom observations and
field notes. The results of the study indicate that portfolios are an empowering
activity and contribute to students’ development of self-regulated learning.
Implications of the study are discussed.
Portfolio assessment (PA) is promulgated as a useful tool to promote
learning through assessment (Hamp-Lyons and Condon 2000). In the
EFL/ESL classroom, writing portfolios play an important role because they
uniquely place students in the driver’s seat. Rather than having students
become passive or unmotivated when faced with the daunting task of
writing in their second language (Lee 2011), PA has the capacity to engage
students in the writing process, and to spur them on in their development
as writers (Parsons and Taylor 2011). While the benefits of PA are
well documented, its implementation in the EFL/ESL classroom faces
several obstacles. First, sociocultural factors such as teacher workload
and a lack of autonomy to develop innovative forms of assessment, as
well as the prevalence of product-oriented writing pedagogy, impede
the popularization of PA (see Lee ibid.; Mak and Lee 2014). Second,
there is insufficient language assessment training that develops and
enhances teachers’ skills in, knowledge of, and practice of alternative
assessments (Hamp-Lyons 2007). Third, and relatedly, teachers’ lack
of assessment literacy hinders the development of student agency in
learning, where students require guidance from teachers to become
self-regulated learners (Lo 2010). Self-regulation is an intricate process,
whereby students set learning goals, and monitor, regulate, and control
their cognition to achieve these goals. It has a strong association with
ELT Journal; doi:10.1093/elt/ccx012 Page 1 of 13
students’ learning and academic performance. As such, students actively
construct knowledge and skills, and assume greater learner agency in the
learning process. Through these self-regulatory processes, students attain
higher academic achievement (Pintrich 2000). However, self-regulation
does not come easily and calls for teachers to use instructional practices
that foster students’ self-regulation. In the PA literature, there is a dearth
of empirical research on how writing classrooms can effectively foster
students’ self-regulation, and how students perceive the development of
their self-regulated capacities through PA (see Lam 2013). To address this
research gap, the present study explores how two elementary teachers
help students cultivate self-regulation after professional training and
support, and examines how using PA enhances self-regulation from the
perspective of students.
This study adopts the framework proposed by Pintrich (op.cit.), which
promotes students’ self-regulation through four cyclical steps: (1)
forethought, planning, and activation; (2) monitoring; (3) control; and (4)
reaction and reflection. This model was chosen because it includes ‘factors
associated with schooling and addresses the complexities of self-regulation
outside of laboratory settings’ (Schunk 2005: 87), and is therefore ideal for
examining self-regulation in educational contexts. This study addresses
the following research questions:
1 How do the elementary teachers foster students’ self-regulation through
PA in their writing classrooms?
2 What are the effects of using PA on self-regulation among elementary
In Hong Kong, portfolios are recommended to teachers as a tool to
encourage active learning and promote learner independence (CDC
2004). According to Roemer, Schultz, and Durst (1991: 455), a portfolio
‘dovetails neatly with process theories about writing’, as the potential of
portfolios in teaching and learning is maximized with the development of
learners’ portfolios over time, allowing drafting and revision to take place
as students incorporate feedback. Portfolios, however, are underutilized in
Hong Kong, and the process approach is not widely practised (Lee op.cit.).
Instead, writing is often conducted under timed conditions and is more
tested than taught. Moreover, students lack clarity about the learning goals
and are not adequately prepared for the writing task. ‘One-shot’ writing
is prevalent, where teachers respond to student writing using a product-
oriented approach, treating it as a final draft. Self- and peer assessment,
where learners assume responsibility for their learning and assessment of
their learning processes, are not commonly practised. Assessment, being
detached from learning, does not afford students the opportunity to act on
the teacher’s feedback, relegating students to a passive role throughout the
writing process (Mak and Lee op.cit.).
Since PA is underused in Hong Kong, it is challenging to locate teachers
who are skilled at using it. To gain access to data, convenience sampling
was used, where two teachers new to the implementation of PA (and
therefore typical of teachers in Hong Kong more generally), Kenneth and
Hilary (pseudonyms) from two primary schools, voluntarily participated in
The study
The Hong Kong
writing classroom
Context and participants
Page 2 of 13 Pauline Mak and Kevin M. Wong
the study. Kenneth held a Master’s degree in English language teaching,
while Hilary had earned a bachelor’s degree in English. Little attention
was placed on PA in their education and training. At the time of the study,
Kenneth had three years of teaching experience, whereas Hilary had
eight. Their Primary 6 students, totalling 69 in number, were Cantonese-
speaking children aged 11 and 12 who had received English instruction
for approximately eight to nine years. The students had eight English
language lessons every week, of which two were devoted to English
writing. They did in-class writing, and were usually given approximately
45 minutes to complete one piece of writing. Their English writing
proficiency level, according to the national Territory System Assessment,1
was at the territory’s average.
Prior to the study, Kenneth’s school adopted process pedagogy in its
writing classes. Teachers administered feedback on content in the
first draft, and form-focused feedback on the second draft. Direct
comprehensive feedback, where every single error was identified and
corrected, was practised in the final draft. Hilary’s school, on the other
hand, adopted a traditional product-oriented pedagogy, with only direct
comprehensive feedback. Peer assessment was carried out occasionally in
both schools. Neither of the teachers had used portfolios in their writing
classrooms, but they both had noticed that students lacked motivation and
a purpose for writing. As such, they were willing to devote time and effort
to transform their assessment practice, and to develop students’ ability
to self-regulate their learning in order to become reflective, autonomous
writers. This would be done through PA within a process writing
approach, as the teachers believed that portfolios could provide ‘footprints’
that document students’ competencies at a particular point in time, and
could also ‘act as a trace of students’ progress from one testing occasion to
the next’ (Hamp-Lyons and Condon op.cit.: 26).
To develop the teachers’ competence and expertise in PA implementation,
the first author (a teacher educator) engaged them in a two-day
professional development workshop and carried out the teaching of each
phase of the PA, as laid out in Figure 1. During the workshop, the teachers
developed materials such as writing goals and assessment criteria with
guidance from the first author. Understanding the teachers’ existing
workload, the first author was sensitive to their needs and provided
teachers with sample teaching materials, which could be modified to suit
the needs of their students and classrooms. Throughout the academic
year, the two teachers communicated periodically with the first author,
seeking advice through email exchanges. Their lessons were also observed
three times by the first author to hone their practice in PA.
Data collection and
Data included individual interviews with teachers, focus group interviews
with students, lesson observations, and documentary analysis of teaching
materials and student writing collected over one academic year. As part of
a larger study, the present article draws exclusively on the data obtained
from teacher and student interviews and classroom observations, as
well as documentary analysis of teaching material. Semi-structured
interviews with teachers and students, lasting between 40 and 60
Professional training
and support
Self-regulation through portfolio assessment in writing classrooms Page 3 of 13
minutes, were used as a pre- and post-study instrument. The first author
conducted individual interviews with the teachers in English, and focus
group interviews in Cantonese with six randomly selected students
of high-, mid-, and low-English language proficiency from each class.
Each classroom was observed for a double lesson, lasting roughly 80
minutes each, three times during the school year. Field notes were taken.
All interviews were audio-recorded while all lesson observations were
The interviews in English (with teachers) were transcribed verbatim and the
Cantonese interviews (with students) were transcribed and translated into
English. Using a qualitative, inductive, and iterative approach, the interview
transcripts went through rigorous and systematic reading and coding
to allow major themes to emerge, and to identify themes related to the
research questions. To strengthen the trustworthiness of the findings, we
first analysed the data individually, and then collectively, to reach consensus.
The classroom observation data were reviewed to identify episodes that
reflected the supportive practices of self-regulation, and field notes were
analysed and used to substantiate the findings from the interview data.
Research findings
Research question 1
Cultivating self-regulation through PA in the writing classroom
encompasses Pintrich’s (op.cit.) four cyclical phases of self-regulatory
processes, including (1) forethought, planning, and activation; (2)
monitoring; (3) control; and (4) reaction and reflection. The first phase
involves target goal-setting, activating prior knowledge about the
content to be studied, and activating metacognitive knowledge that
the students might have about the task, such as knowledge about the
text structure and purpose in writing. The second and third phases are
intimately intertwined, where learners engage in monitoring processes
that illuminate the gap between their progress and desired goals. The
learners are then able to exercise metacognitive control and regulate their
own thinking by revising and modifying plans based on their progress.
In the final phase, learners react to their performance against the task,
and reflect on their strengths, weaknesses, and areas for improvement.
The various phases do not necessarily follow a linear process, whereby
monitoring, control, and reaction may occur concurrently during the
writing process. As such, learner goals are continually modified based on
feedback derived from the monitoring, control, and reaction processes.
Phase 1
To facilitate the first phase of self-regulatory processes, both teachers
provided instructional scaffolding that followed a genre-based approach,
comprising three stages: modelling, joint construction, and independent
construction (Martin 1999). First, the teachers activated students’ prior
knowledge of the structure and language features of the target genre by
deconstructing a model text and examining the assessment criteria in
the feedback form (see Figure 2). Next, the teachers collaborated with
students to produce part of the target text using ideas generated on a mind
map (see Figure 3) created in the previous lesson. After that, the students
set goals in relation to the task-specific features that corresponded to the
assessment criteria introduced earlier (see Figure 4). This informed how
Page 4 of 13 Pauline Mak and Kevin M. Wong
they each constructed the first draft of their writing. The teacher promoted
self-regulation through explicit instruction and modelling of the target
text, familiarizing students with the writing task. Through goal-setting,
the teacher supported the development of self-regulated processes by
establishing criteria to make students cognisant of what to strive for in
their learning. It also helped them set realistic expectations to maximize
success in the writing task (see Figure 1, which depicts the relationship
between PA and the four phases of self-regulation).
Hilary outlined how she facilitated the development of students’ self-
regulation during this phase of explicit modelling and joint construction:
It’s unrealistic to ask students to set goals without providing input. Before
asking the students to start their writing, I’d use the feedback form to go
over the assessment criteria related to the target genre. For a recount, I’d
discuss with students why we need to include the WH-questions, and
describe the events in sequence. I’d also go over the language features like
the use of past tense with them. After that, I’d show them a model text
… I suppose my instruction is crucial. Without it, my students wouldn’t
know what constitutes success in a writing piece, and they wouldn’t know
how to set their own goals, or what to work towards.
Phases 2 to 4
Since the remaining three phases of self-regulatory processes are recursive
in nature, they are reported together in this section.
After the first draft, the students reviewed and assessed their own
writing using the feedback form with assessment criteria. They then
performed peer assessment using the same feedback form (see Figure 5
for a sample of student work). Next, teachers collected the students’
first drafts and offered them feedback on content. Corresponding to the
assessment criteria laid out in the feedback form, the teachers’ feedback
was tailored towards the students’ goals (for example feedback targeted
at how well students write an unforgettable ending if that is their aim
figure 1
Relationship between PA
and the four phases of
Self-regulation through portfolio assessment in writing classrooms Page 5 of 13
in the goal-setting sheet in Figure 4). In this way, students are able to
develop self-regulatory proficiencies to self-assess their writing against the
assessment criteria introduced in the instructional scaffolding stage, and to
monitor their progress towards the targeted goals in the feedback received.
Once students strengthened their writing using feedback from peers
and teachers, they submitted their second draft for teacher feedback. The
teacher administered focused and coded feedback on the second draft,
using specific codes for selected errors. This compelled students to revisit
their thinking, reflect upon their existing knowledge, and critically self-
correct their errors. Once again, the teachers supported the students’ self-
regulation by engaging them in self-assessment of their own errors and
self-monitoring of their progress towards their goals. The students then
improved their writing by incorporating the form-focused feedback into
their final draft for teachers to review. Therefore, throughout the drafting
and revision processes, the students constantly exercised monitoring and
control over their writing.
Upon receiving the final draft, the students filled in the error log to
note down the number of errors they had made and to self-monitor
their own progress. The students also examined their work, reflected
on their writing using a reflection sheet (see Figure 4), and selected the
work for inclusion in the portfolio to demonstrate competence. Through
reflection, students engaged in critical thinking about their own progress
towards their personal goals, and had a clearer direction of where to
proceed. This enabled them to adjust goals and strategically plan for the
subsequent piece of writing, ultimately spurring them on in their growth
as writers.
figure 2
Feedback form* for story
Note: *each feedback form was designed by the teachers and created according to the
genre of the writing
Page 6 of 13 Pauline Mak and Kevin M. Wong
Kenneth described how he fostered students’ development of self-
regulatory skills during these three phases:
Because I wanted students to monitor their learning throughout the
writing process, I found that I had to refer to their goal sheets more
when I was providing feedback … I had to think of specific feedback that
would help them foster that skill. Before and after each draft, I would
also make sure students quickly revisited their goals to help motivate
them, rather than letting these goals sit in their portfolio until the
selection and documentation phases … As time progressed, students
continued to choose bite-sized goals that were realistic and easy to
monitor, which translated into notable changes in their drafts with
regard to their goals.
figure 3
Mind map
Note: Figures 3–5 show student work about a writing piece called ‘An unhealthy lifestyle’
Self-regulation through portfolio assessment in writing classrooms Page 7 of 13
In sum, the teachers provided students with guidance to develop self-
regulatory proficiencies through the four phases of self-regulatory
processes that are closely intertwined with PA. To start with, the
explicit instruction in Phase 1 serves as a means of scaffolding the
learning process, enabling students to have a clear vision of what
they should progress towards and to set individualized goals. In
the remaining three phases, the students constantly monitored and
regulated their actions towards their goals through the feedback
provided by their peers and teachers. The information gathered from
the monitoring and control phases facilitated students’ self-reflection
on their learning, allowing them to set manageable goals in order to
challenge themselves in the next piece of writing, and to select writing
pieces for inclusion in their portfolios.
figure 4
Goal setting and reflection
Page 8 of 13 Pauline Mak and Kevin M. Wong
Research question 2
figure 5
Peer assessment
Increased agency and goal-orientedness
First, by establishing an objective through goal-setting, students had a
heightened awareness of what to strive for. The goals gave the students a
sense of direction and guided their attention to include relevant features
in their piece of writing. While writing, the students diverted their
attention to the specific features they had set out to achieve, such as using
broader and varied vocabulary, or adjectives to describe the characters in
their stories. This is reflected in the quotes below from Hilary’s students,
translated from Cantonese to English:
I challenged myself to use a broader range of vocabulary by integrating
the newly learnt vocabulary in my writing as laid down in my goal-
setting sheet. (H01)
Because of the goal-setting in the initial stage of the writing, I know
exactly what I am supposed to strive for. For example, I know
specifically that I have to use more adjectives to help the readers know
about my characters and make a better story. (H03)
Self-regulation through portfolio assessment in writing classrooms Page 9 of 13
Second, the goals also motivated the students to exert effort to attain them.
One of Kenneth’s students said:
The goals are like giving you a blueprint and direction and you’ll try to
achieve your goals. (K06)
Since the students set goals determined by their ability and knowledge of
themselves as learners, and the goals were self-initiated and self-directed,
students exercised greater control over their learning and demonstrated
greater agency in the writing process.
Enhanced capacity to evaluate and monitor own work
From goal-setting and keeping an error log to self- and peer assessment,
the students reported that they were constantly self-evaluating and
monitoring their progress. To start with, they monitored their progress
towards the targeted goals by identifying the discrepancies between their
set goals and their writing draft, making adjustments or changes in their
writing accordingly. Kenneth’s student commented:
So before writing, you put down what you want to achieve and after
writing, you take a look to see whether you have done that in your
compositions. (K05)
Sharing the assessment criteria prior to the writing task also
developed students’ capacity to evaluate and monitor their work. With
requirements clearly laid out in the assessment criteria, students
became cognisant of the criteria, understood the standards they
were aiming for, and monitored their progress towards the expected
standards. Hilary’s student nicely summarized how she gauges
progress in writing:
The assessment criteria in the feedback form enables us to have a
clearer sense of what a piece of good writing is and we also get to know
the standard or expectations of the teachers … We have the assessment
criteria in front of us and we check whether everything is there in our
writing. (H05)
Apart from self-assessment, peer assessment encouraged peer-to-peer
comparisons according to expected standards in the feedback form. This
allowed students to improve the quality of their writing, make judgements
about their peers’ work, and evaluate their own writing at the same time.
Hilary’s student reflected as follows:
We compare our work with that of our peers, so having peers review our
writing can help raise our standard. (H02)
Keeping track of errors using an error log, the students became aware
of their writing accuracy, and how far they had progressed relative to
their self-set goals. Knowing the amount and type of errors they made in
their writing, they were motivated to improve their writing accuracy in
subsequent pieces. Some of the students said:
The error log can keep track of which area you have improved on or got
weaker in and you can think about how to make improvements. (K02)
Page 10 of 13 Pauline Mak and Kevin M. Wong
I think the error log can help us keep a record of the errors we’ve made
and we’ll know how much we’ve improved and which grammar items
we still have to work on. (H04)
Greater autonomy in handling feedback
Due to focused and coded feedback, students believed they had developed
into independent learners and enjoyed taking more responsibility in
handling feedback. Through the codes offered by their teachers, students
revisited their thinking and generated their own strategies to respond
to feedback. The following quotes illustrate how the students reduced
dependence and reliance on their teachers:
I’ve become more autonomous in writing. In the past, I relied on the
teacher to tell me what the mistakes are but now the teacher won’t point
out our mistakes directly ... He writes ‘t’ and you have to figure out
whether there are ‘tense’ mistakes in the whole sentence. (K01)
She underlines the mistakes and writes the codes in the margin, so we
can train ourselves to look for and self-edit the mistakes by ourselves.
Greater independence in handling feedback is evident in peer
assessments. Students do not perceive the teacher as the only person to
give feedback and they trust the feedback from their peers. The quotes
below show how Kenneth’s students are clear about the purpose behind
comments to peers, and also reflect on their ability to provide useful
I think good comments mean that you have to tell the classmates what
is good about the piece of writing and what needs improvement and
this is what I try to do during peer review. (K06)
We can give useful comments to our classmates. For example, I’ll tell
them that their writing is good and which part I like best. (K01)
Willingness to undergo critical self-reflection
Reflection sheets encouraged the students to make critical judgements on
their own writing. They would compare the goals set before writing and
the reflection written afterwards to find out whether they had achieved
the goals they had set. While reflection reinforced the students’ sense
of success, it simultaneously helped them acknowledge the areas which
called for more attention. One of Kenneth’s students commented as
We can compare whether we have fulfilled the goals as we do the
reflection. We then know which part we’ve done relatively badly and we
can improve on it. (K06)
Another student added:
After comparing, we know whether we have met our goals. So we’ll try
our best to improve next time. (K04)
Apart from the reflection sheets, students also performed self-reflection
by monitoring their progress and selecting the writing pieces for inclusion
Self-regulation through portfolio assessment in writing classrooms Page 11 of 13
in their portfolios that best illustrated their growth as writers. Hilary’s
student expounds on how important it is to reflect on their progress and
Every time after writing, I think about whether and which aspect I’ve
improved upon and I’ll select these writing pieces to be put in my
writing portfolio. (H03)
All in all, students exhibit a greater degree of agency and goal-
orientedness, as well as an increased responsibility for and greater
ownership of their learning, which embody processes of self-regulation
(Zimmerman 2008).
Implications and
Empowering students as self-regulated learners is one of the fundamental
goals in education, and this article has provided evidence of how this can
be achieved through PA.
Nonetheless, it is important to acknowledge the limitations of our
research. The study is based on self-reported data from the teachers and
students, and draws on a small sample. It is, however, not our intention
to generalize the findings, but to gain an in-depth understanding of
how teachers support students’ self-regulation, and how the students’
PA experiences enhance self-regulatory skills. The findings of our study
suggest that students perceive PA as an effective platform to become
self-regulated learners. Moreover, the findings point to the critical role
of the teacher in supporting student responsibility and ownership of
learning, as the ability to self-regulate requires scaffolding. Therefore,
the teacher must design pedagogical practices at each stage of PA to
foster students’ development of self-regulatory skills. As such, explicit
guidance and modelling are required. For instance, demystifying
assessment criteria enhances students’ understanding of what is
required in a writing task, which informs the setting of learning goals.
The teachers’ feedback, tailored towards students’ goals, empowers the
students and enhances their ability to closely monitor their progress
towards these goals. However, teachers like those in Hong Kong, where
PA is not popular, may lack awareness and knowledge in the use of PA,
as well as skills that promote self-regulation, due to inadequate training
during pre-service preparation programmes (see Hamp-Lyons op.cit.;
Perry, Hutchinson, and Thauberger 2008). Enhancing knowledge
in the practical know-how of PA that takes into account the teaching
contexts and self-regulation development of young learners therefore
demands the professional development of teachers. In this regard,
with the knowledge and skills needed to implement PA, as well as the
expertise to scaffold students’ self-regulatory processes at different
points of PA, teachers will be better equipped to empower students
to take more responsibility for learning, and to become more actively
engaged in their development as writers.
Final version received January 2017
Page 12 of 13 Pauline Mak and Kevin M. Wong
1 TSA aims to measure students’ attainment of
fundamental skills set out in the curriculum,
enabling the government to monitor the
effectiveness of their policies and provide focused
support to schools in need (Education Commission
CDC (Curriculum Development Council). 2004.
English Language Education Key Learning Area: English
Language Curriculum Guide (Primary 1–6). Hong
Kong: Hong Kong Government Printer.
Education Commission. 2000. Learning for Life,
Learning Through Life: Reform Proposals for Education
System in Hong Kong. Hong Kong: Hong Kong
Government Printer.
Hamp-Lyons, L. 2007. ‘The impact of testing
practices on teaching: ideologies and alternatives’
in J. Cummins and C. Davison (eds.). International
Handbook of English Language Teaching. Norwell, MA:
Hamp-Lyons, L. and W. Condon. 2000. Assessing the
Portfolio: Principles for Practice, Theory, and Research.
Creskill, NJ: Hampton Press.
Lam, R. 2013. ‘Two portfolio systems: EFL students’
perceptions of writing ability, text improvement, and
feedback’. Assessing Writing 18/2: 132–53.
Lee, I. 2011. ‘Bringing innovation to EFL writing
through a focus on assessment for learning’.
Innovation in Language Learning and Teaching 5/1:
Lo, Y. F. 2010. ‘Implementing reflective portfolios for
promoting autonomous learning among EFL college
students in Taiwan’. Language Teaching Research 14/1:
Mak, P. and I. Lee. 2014. ‘Implementing assessment
for learning in L2 writing: an activity theory
perspective’. System 47: 73–87.
Martin, J. R. 1999. ‘Mentoring semogenesis: “genre-
based” literacy pedagogy’ in F. Christie (ed.). Pedagogy
and the Shaping of Consciousness: Linguistic and Social
Processes. London: Cassell.
Parsons, J. and I. Taylor. 2011. ‘Improving student
engagement’. Current Issues in Education 14/1: 4–32.
Perry, N. E., L. Hutchinson, and C. Thauberger. 2008.
‘Talking about teaching self-regulated learning:
scaffolding student teachers’ development and use
of practices that promote self-regulated learning’.
International Journal of Educational Research 47:
Pintrich, P. R. 2000. ‘The role of goal orientation in
self-regulated learning’ in M. Boekaerts,
P. R. Pintrich, and M. Zeidner (eds.). Handbook of
Self-regulation. San Diego, CA: Academic Press.
Roemer, M., L. Schultz, and R. K. Durst. 1991.
‘Portfolios and the process of change’. College
Composition and Communication 42/4: 455–69.
Schunk, D. H. 2005. ‘Self-regulated learning: the
educational legacy of Paul R. Pintrich’. Educational
Psychologist 40/2: 85–94.
Zimmerman, B. J. 2008. ‘Investigating self-
regulation and motivation: historical background,
methodological developments, and future prospects’.
American Educational Research Journal 45/1: 166–83.
The authors
Pauline Mak is an Assistant Professor in the
Department of English Language Education at the
Education University of Hong Kong. Her research
interests include language assessment, second
language writing, and second language teacher
education. Her publications have appeared in The
Asia-Pacific Education Researcher, Language Teaching
Research, English Teaching: Practice and Critique, as
well as System.
Kevin M. Wong is a PhD candidate at New York
University Steinhardt School of Culture, Education,
and Human Development. His research interests
include second language writing, second language
vocabulary learning, and comparative education.
His publications have appeared in The Asia-Pacific
Education Researcher and Reconsidering Development.
Self-regulation through portfolio assessment in writing classrooms Page 13 of 13
... As the pendulum of educational paradigm has swung towards learner-centered approaches, testing in second language (L2) education has witnessed a radical shift of orientation from a positivistic, psychometric, and testfocused approach to a constructivist, edumetric, and assessment-focused paradigm (Cain, Grundy, & Woodward, 2018;Clarke & Boud, 2018;Gipps, 1994;Lynch, 2001;Mak & Wong, 2018;Puppin, 2007;Sulistyo et al., 2020;Young, 2020). This new assessment framework advocates learners' heightened engagement in the process of assessment, finally leading to the higher quality learning (Black & Wiliam, 2009;McNamara, 2001). ...
... Learners using portfolios in their writing courses do not consider ongoing assessment activities as formal tests, but regard them as various pedagogic venues by which they can think, outline, monitor, draft, and revise written tasks with formative feedback (Ghoorchaei & Tavakoli, 2019;Lam, 2018). In such classrooms, learners and practitioners would jointly participate in the portfolio production process in order to create writing knowledge and competencies by being disentangled from the inveterate hierarchies of power (Mak & Wong, 2018). Portfolios also contribute to teacher professionalism in a sense that teachers that use portfolios are required to design, plan, create, and practice related portfolio techniques via group efforts (Lam, 2018). ...
Full-text available
Although the usefulness of alternative assessment in second language (L2) classrooms has been extensively recognized by scholars, the use of the various types of alternative assessment in English as a Foreign Language (EFL) contexts has not received adequate attention by L2 practitioners. To contribute to this line of research, the present research sought to examine the impact of a portfolio-based writing instruction on writing performance and writing anxiety of EFL students. To this end, a number of 41 EFL learners were recruited as the participants of this study. They were then randomly divided to an experimental group (N=21) and a control group (N=20). The participants in the experimental group received portfolio-based writing instruction, whereas the control group received the regular writing instruction with no archiving of students' drafts in portfolios. Timed-writing tasks and the Second Language Writing Anxiety Inventory (SLWAI) were employed to collect the data. The results obtained from ANCOVA analysis revealed that the portfolio-based writing instruction aided the participants in improving their writing performance more than the control group. Moreover, it was found that the use of portfolios significantly reduced the L2 writing anxiety of the participants while the traditional writing instruction did not have any significant impact on L2 writing anxiety of the control group. The pedagogical implications for portfolio-based writing instruction are discussed finally.
... Portfolio assessment is one suggested way for dealing with the complexity of having pupils practice their speaking. Despite the paucity of research on portfolio's impact on speaking development, it has been claimed that portfolio gives learners more time to prepare, space to reflect, opportunities to reorganize ideas, and a substantial contribution to self-regulated learning development (Mak and Wong, 2017). Furthermore, when it is ICT-integrated, the advantage can be doubled. ...
Full-text available
div align="center"> Abstract: The ICT advancement provokes the possibility of developing speaking skill through portfolio assessment which was commonly attributable mostly to writing skill. Hence, an exploratory study adopting ADDIE model was conducted to develop an electronic portfolio assessment integrated into teaching materials. A triangulated technique of data collection: questionnaire respondents, interviews and data from evaluation sheets was gathered. Statistical descriptive analysis, discourse and content analysis were conducted and positive possibilities were found to ffacilitate the development of speaking skills through electronic portfolio assessment. </div
... Utilising portfolios in writing classrooms corresponds with the process writing movement, where teaching writing emphasises multi-drafting, self-and peer-editing, and self-reflection. Studies on writing portfolios reveal that students become self-regulated in learning writing, and have considerable learning gains in accuracy and idea development (Mak & Wong, 2018). Portfolios can be said to reduce writing anxiety and to provide students with ample opportunities to revise works-in-progress (Lee, 2017). ...
Despite the benefits of writing portfolios, scholars remain unclear about how assessment training influences teacher use of portfolios for writing assessment in China. The chapter investigates the role and effectiveness of assessment training when Chinese teachers attempt portfolio assessment. The study was conducted in a doctorate degree programme in Hong Kong. Three informants from Mainland China registered an 11-session content course on English language assessment. The assessment training consisted of three lectures and two workshops on the principles of language assessment and writing portfolio assessment respectively. Data were collected by an open-ended questionnaire, post-workshop individual interviews and reflection papers, and analysed by qualitative methods. Implications are drawn to suggest future directions of developing teacher assessment literacy in China and beyond.
... *When Sts are guided to reflect on their progress by teachers with checklist or writing assessment criteria, portfolio assessment encourages learners to be self-directed (Mak & Wong, 2018). *Sts who know how to monitor their progress become more aware of their strengths and weaknesses and are more successful in finding ways to improve their writing. ...
Full-text available
This chapter presents and discusses various formative assessment strategies that language teachers can use to assess their students writing and speaking skills development.
... The participants reported how the portfolio helped with their clinical learning as revealed by Dehkordi and Ghiyasvandian (2019), who found that the portfolio facilitated active learning, and Mak and Wong (2018), who found that it encouraged self-directed or independent learning. All in all, learning is facilitated with the use of a portfolio. ...
Background The use of a portfolio as an assessment tool in nursing and midwifery education it is still a relatively new phenomenon. Institutions of higher education should therefore continuously explore the experiences of nursing students in the use of a portfolio in clinical nursing education. In Namibia little research exists on the perspectives of nursing students on the use of a portfolio as an assessment tool. Purpose The purpose of the study was to explore nursing students' experiences with portfolio as an assessment tool in nursing and midwifery education. Method The study used the qualitative approach, with an explorative, descriptive, and contextual design. Fifteen (15) undergraduate nursing students participated in this study, using a snowball sampling technique. Data was collected through semi-structured interviews. Data was analysed using thematic analysis for recurring themes. Results The following four themes emerged: understanding of a portfolio, positive experiences, negative experiences, and effective portfolio utilisation. Conclusion The results revealed nursing students' positive and negative experiences, with suggestions for improvement. The findings may help identify strengths and weaknesses in portfolio usage for assessment purposes in nursing and midwifery education. This study recommended well-articulated plans and actions from students, clinical instructors, lecturers, faculty management teams, and the nurses in practice facilities, to address the challenges identified.
... Self-regulation theory was the basis for this study and its measures. 4) Using portfolios with 69 secondary students in an English writing classroom, Mak and Wong (2018) observed that students who engaged in the four phases of self-regulation, with their teacher's support, actively monitored their goals and regulated their effort, as evidenced by one student's remark, "the goals are like giving you a blueprint and direction and you'll try to achieve your goals" (p. 58). ...
Full-text available
Current conceptions of assessment describe interactive, reciprocal processes of co-regulation of learning from multiple sources, including students, their teachers and peers, and technological tools. In this systematic review, we examine the research literature for support for the view of classroom assessment as a mechanism of the co-regulation of learning and motivation. Using an expanded framework of self-regulated learning to categorize 94 studies, we observe that there is support for most but not all elements of the framework but little research that represents the reciprocal nature of co-regulation. We highlight studies that enable students and teachers to use assessment to scaffold co-regulation. Concluding that the contemporary perspective on assessment as the co-regulation of learning is a useful development, we consider future directions for research that can address the limitations of the collection reviewed.
Full-text available
اتجهت دراسات التقويم التربوي إلى البحث عن أساليب تقويم بديلة؛ تتواءم مع طرائق التدريس الحديثة في نظم التعلّم، وتقلل من استخدام الاختبارات أو مكملة لها على أقل تقدير ولا تنادي باستبعادها وإنما تهدف إلى استكمال النقص فيها عن طريق إمداد المعلمين بالمعلومات التي يفتقرون إليها في الحكم على أداء الطلاب خلال الفصل الدراسي وبطرق متنوعة تسمح باستكشاف استعدادات المتعلّمين الفنية والأدبية والعلمية وغيرها مما لا تكشفه لنا اختبارات الورقة والقلم بشكلها التقليدي. تهدف هذه الدراسة إلى الإحاطة بالأدب النظري و مناقشة أساسيات مبادئ وكيفية استخدام التقويم الذاتي وتقويم الأقران في القسم الدراسي لتوظيفها كأدوات تدريب تنمي القدرة على التفكير النقدي وتحسين التنظيم الذاتي وتعزّز استقلالية المتعلّم وذاتيته، فإشراك المتعلّمين بنشاط في عملية التقييم أمر بالغ الأهمية لتعزيز دوافعهم وتحسين التحصيل الدراسي. Educational evaluation studies have tended to search for alternative evaluation methods that are compatible with modern teaching methods in learning systems, and reduce the use of tests or at least complement them. Students during the semester and in a variety of ways that allow exploring the artistic, literary, and scientific preparations of learners and other things that the paper and pen tests do not reveal to us in their traditional form. This study aims to encompass theoretical literature and discuss the basics of principles and how to use self-evaluation and peer evaluation in the academic department to be used as training tools that develop the ability to think critically, improve self-regulation, and enhance the learner's independence and autonomy. Involving learners actively in the evaluation process is crucial to enhance their motivation and improve academic achievement.
Portfolio assessment has gained momentum in different educational settings in the past few decades. Making a promising contribution as an alternative assessment method to impromptu essay testing and multiple-choice testing, portfolio assessment has emerged as a purposeful and efficient collection of students' work that documents their effort, progress and achievement in learning. Although the benefits of portfolio assessment are well validated, its implementation has not made in roads into the L2 writing classroom and is hamstrung by factors such as the prevalence of product-oriented writing pedagogy and the lack of assessment literacy on the part of the teachers. Research which taps into the alignment of these factors would be of significant value to support a wider spread of portfolio assessment.
While previous studies on assessment as learning (AaL) in second language (L2) writing have mainly focused on writing teachers’ design and implementation of AaL, scant research has examined students’ agentic engagement in an AaL context. To fill the gap, this study explores how three Chinese undergraduates engage agentively in an AaL-focused writing classroom. Drawing on multiple data including student interviews, verbal reports, multiple essay drafts, peer and teacher feedback, learning logs and classroom observation field notes, the study found that students displayed different degrees of agentic engagement which was characterized by their collaboration in assessment context co-construction, and proactivity in self-regulating their own learning. On the other hand, individual differences such as English writing proficiency, motivation towards writing and beliefs concerning the roles of teachers and students in assessment might affect their agentic engagement. This study contributes to our understanding of how AaL enhances the learning of L2 writing from the perspective of learners’ proactive and reciprocal involvement and sheds light on what and how classroom assessment activities can foster students’ agentic engagement.
Full-text available
This is the first book-length publication on portfolios written by the same two authors throughout and represents many years of work developing portfolio programs at US universities and training TAs and faculty to work with them. Hamp-Lyons and Condon worked together to introduce portfolios as a form of assessment at the University of Michigan's English Composition Board. In time each moved on,and worked with portfolios in new contexts. These shared and multiple experiences provided the practice described in the book; the insights and problems experienced brought the development of the theory, strengthened by research projects conducted together and separately over the years.
Full-text available
The paper that follows reviews research literature in the area of student engagement. Our goal in this work is practical: we hope to discover in this literature curricular and pedagogical ideas educators might successfully use to better engage students in learning. Prior to outlining the specifics of our research, we offer a general overview of what we have found as we have studied the literature to provide a context that might help readers better understand this area of study. Specifically, our reading suggests that work in the area of student engagement seems to have grown in a number of ways-the greatest of which is the change from focusing upon disengaged students (who are not learning) to engaged learners (who are learning). We theorize that older work about student engagement attempted to reshape 'renegade' students back into the fold of schooling, but current work is more willing to revision schools to fit the learning needs of students. This change seems crucial and promises to organize how the study of student engagement will be carried out in the future.
Full-text available
The topic of how students become self-regulated as learners has attracted researchers for decades. Initial attempts to measure self-regulated learning (SRL) using questionnaires and interviews were successful in demonstrating significant predictions of students’ academic outcomes. The present article describes the second wave of research, which has involved the development of online measures of self-regulatory processes and motivational feelings or beliefs regarding learning in authentic contexts. These innovative methods include computer traces, think-aloud protocols, diaries of studying, direct observation, and microanalyses. Although still in the formative stage of development, these online measures are providing valuable new information regarding the causal impact of SRL processes as well as raising new questions for future study.
Full-text available
This chapter considers the current state of classroom assessment of English language proficiency and use, and argues for the existence of two often conflicting assessment cultures, a learning culture and an exam culture. This chapter characterizes the key principles and practices in each culture, and suggests that these two cultures stem from differing ideologies that pose great obstacles to reconciliation between effective selection instruments (usually called tests) and humanistic assessment. The chapter suggests that planned innovation in assessment is unlikely to be successful without vastly improved attention to teacher preparation in relation to assessment. It is further proposed that because the principles and practices of the exam culture reflect the dominant ideology in the discourse of educational economics and politics, this domination can only be altered by paying conscious attention to teachers’ voices, particularly through professional development activities conducted as an integral part of the process of establishing value systems for educational assessment.
While there is extensive literature on how assessment for learning (AfL) can be put into practice at the general classroom level, research examining teachers' attempts to implement AfL in writing, especially in the elementary context, is relatively less explored. The present study seeks to shed light on how four elementary teachers in Hong Kong attempt to foster change in assessment by implementing AfL in the L2 writing classroom dominated by the examination culture. Drawing on data gathered from classroom observations and interviews with administrators and teachers of two Hong Kong primary schools over the course of one year, this study uncovers the tensions that arise as a result of the introduction of AfL in writing. Using activity theory and its notion of contradiction, the study concludes that the uptake of AfL innovation in writing could be inhibited unless the contradictions in the activity systems can be resolved.
This article depicts challenges for students and teachers involved in developing a reflective portfolio to promote autonomous learning in Taiwan. One hundred and one students in a Taiwan university completed their individual portfolio projects. A pre-course questionnaire, post-course self-evaluation, and the instructor’s field notes were the data collection tools. The pre-course questionnaire results showed the students had neither experience of compiling portfolios nor knowledge of autonomous learning. The teacher could not let all decision-making power go to such inexperienced students. Instead, the teacher’s role needed to alternate between decision-maker, facilitator and resource person to help the students learn to be autonomous. The students’ major tasks were to manage their time and learning, and develop the critical thinking skills considered inadequately taught in Asia. The portfolio enabled the students to engage in multi-domain learning and to practise autonomous learning. The students’ awareness of autonomous learning was thus enhanced. Pedagogical suggestions are made for improving the effectiveness of portfolios for promoting autonomous learning.
Research into portfolio assessment (‘PA’) typically describes teachers’ development and implementation of different portfolio models in their respective teaching contexts, however, not much attention is paid to student perceptions of the portfolio approach or its impact on the learning of writing. To this end, this study aims to investigate how two groups of Hong Kong EFL pre-university students (Groups A and B) perceived and responded to two portfolio systems (with each group experiencing one portfolio system either working portfolio or showcase portfolio) in one academic writing course. The case study approach was adopted and data sources included semi-structured interviews, student reflective journals, classroom observations, and analysis of text revisions. Findings indicated that students from the showcase portfolio group (Group B) were less enthusiastic about the effectiveness of PA, and queried whether it could promote autonomy in writing, while the working portfolio group (Group A) was more receptive to the experience, and considered that a feedback-rich environment in the working portfolio system could facilitate writing improvement. The paper concludes with a discussion of how PA can be used to promote self-regulation in the learning of writing.
Paul R. Pintrich was a leading figure in the field of self-regulated learning. This article discusses some of Paul's major contributions: (a) formulating a conceptual framework for studying self-regulated learning comprising phases (forethought, planning, activation; monitoring; control; reaction, reflection) and areas for self-regulation (cognition, motivation, behavior, context); (b) emphasizing the role of motivation in self-regulation; (c) conducting research linking learning, motivation, and self-regulation; (d) exploring the development of and interventions to enhance self-regulatory processes; (e) investigating how the complexities of classrooms and schools affect self-regulation; and (f) helping to develop the MSLQ to assess self-regulated learning, cognition, and motivation. Paul's writings provide ideas for future research on self-regulated learning. Paul Pintrich left a rich legacy through his theoretical elaboration, exemplary research, dissemination and advocacy, and personal and professional friendships.
Current research on goal orientation and self-regulated learning suggests a general framework for examining learning and motivation in academic contexts. Moreover, there are some important generalizations that are emerging from this research. It seems clear that an approach-mastery goal orientation is generally adaptive for cognition, motivation, learning, and performance. The roles of the other goal orientations need to be explored more carefully in empirical research, but the general framework of mastery and performance goals seems to provide a useful way to conceptualize the academic achievement goals that students may adopt in classroom settings and their role in facilitating or constraining self-regulated learning. There is much theoretical and empirical work to be done, but the current models and frameworks are productive and should lead to research on classroom learning that is both theoretically grounded and pedagogically useful.
With a paradigm shift from a focus on product to one on process in language assessment, assessment for learning (AfL) has been gaining currency in educational policy in different parts of the world. While AfL emphasizes the use of assessment for improving learning and teaching, assessment of learning (AoL) focuses on using assessment for administrative and reporting purposes. In L2 writing, assessment has traditionally been characterized by AoL. Although AfL strategies like process pedagogy, formative feedback, peer response, and conferences have been promoted in L2 writing, these strategies are not widely adopted outside North American educational contexts. In English as a foreign language (EFL) contexts, there is scanty research that investigates writing teachers' attempts to bring innovation to their assessment practices through a focus on AfL. Using data from four Secondary 1 (i.e. Grade 7) classrooms in a Hong Kong school, the study aimed to investigate how the teachers' determination to implement AfL in writing influenced their instructional and assessment practices and impacted on students' attitudes and beliefs regarding writing. Results show that the implementation of AfL resulted in a significant change in teachers' instructional and assessment practices, and students improved their motivation in writing. The paper concludes with a few implications for EFL writing.