Your browser does not support the PubReader view.
Go to this page to see a list of supporting browsers.
The Korean Association for the Study of English Language and Linguistics
[ Article ]
Korea Journal of English Language and Linguistics - Vol. 18, No. 4, pp.442-469
ISSN: 1598-1398 (Print)
Print publication date 31 Dec 2018
Received 10 Nov 2018 Revised 10 Dec 2018 Accepted 16 Dec 2018
DOI: https://doi.org/10.15738/kjell.18.4.201812.442

Using Electronic Speaking Portfolios for Assessment in the EFL Classroom: Students’ Perspectives

Yeonwoo Kwak* ; Judy Yin**
Teacher, Yuseong High School 130, Yuseong-daero 654beon-gil, Yuseong-gu, Daejeon, Korea lazuli1118@gmail.com
Professor, English Education Department Korea National University of Education 28173 충북 청주시 흥덕구 강내면 태성탑연로 250 250, Taeseongtabyeon-ro, Gangnae-myeon, Heungdeok-gu, Cheongju-si, Chungcheongbuk-do, Korea, Tel: 043-230-3543 isabella@knue.ac.kr

Correspondence to: Yin, Judy Professor, English Education Department Korea National University of Education 28173 충북 청주시 흥덕구 강내면 태성탑연로 250 250, Taeseongtabyeon-ro, Gangnae-myeon, Heungdeok-gu, Cheongju-si, Chungcheongbuk-do, Korea Phone: 043-230-3543 Email: isabella@knue.ac.kr First author : Kwak, Yeonwoo Teacher, Yuseong High School 130, Yuseong-daero 654beon-gil, Yuseong-gu, Daejeon, Korea E-mail: lazuli1118@gmail.com

Abstract

Kwak, Yeonwoo. and Judy Yin. 2018. Using electronic speaking portfolios for assessment in the EFL classroom: Students’ perspectives. Korean Journal of English Language and Linguistics 18-3, 442-469. The present study investigates students’ perceptions of using electronic speaking portfolios in the EFL (English as a foreign language) classroom. In particular, the study explores students’ experiences throughout the portfolio cycle and aims to find out the students' perceptions of the e-speaking portfolio as an assessment as well as a learning tool. A total of 17 undergraduate students enrolled in the Basic English Speaking course posted ten video clips of their speaking activities, including five initial oral drafts and five revised versions, on their blogs throughout the semester. The students were asked to keep a reflective journal every week about their experience and were interviewed twice. The results of the study show that students benefited from experiencing recursive cycles as they accumulated their entries. In addition, students perceived the e-speaking portfolio as an effective learning tool and an assessment tool as the e-speaking portfolio provided the essential diagnostic information to guide their awareness of their current state and directions for improvement. From the Assessment as Learning (AaL) perspective, this study suggests that the e-speaking portfolio be implemented as a tool to enhance learning by means of diagnostic assessment.

Keywords:

EFL speaking assessment, speaking performance test, speaking portfolio assessment

References

  • Arndt, V. 1993. Response to writing: Using feedback to inform the writing process. In M. N. Brock and L. Walters, eds., Teaching Composition Around the Pacific Rim: Politics and Pedagogy, 90-116. Clevedon, UK: Multilingual Matters.
  • Bailey, C. and C. Fletcher. 2002. The impact of multiple source feedback on management development: Findings from a longitudinal study. Journal of Organizational Behavior 23(7), 853-867. [https://doi.org/10.1002/job.167]
  • Bell, A., J. Kelton, N, McDonagh, R. Mladenovic and K. Morrison. 2011. A critical evaluation of the usefulness of a coding scheme to categorise levels of reflective thinking. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education 36(7), 797-815. [https://doi.org/10.1080/02602938.2010.488795]
  • Bertoldi, E., J. Kollar and E. Ricard. 1988. Learning how to learn English: From awareness to action. ELT Journal 42(3), 157-166. [https://doi.org/10.1093/elt/42.3.157]
  • Beveridge, I. 2009. Teaching your students to think reflectively: The case of reflective journals. Teaching in Higher Education 2(1), 33-43. [https://doi.org/10.1080/1356251970020103]
  • Bogden, R. and S. Biklen. 2007. Qualitative Research for Education: An Introduction to Theories and Methods, 5th ed. New York: Pearson Education Group.
  • Boud, D. 2001. Using journal writing to enhance reflective practice. New Directions in Adult and Continuing Education 90, 9-18. [https://doi.org/10.1002/ace.16]
  • Carver, C. and M. Scheier. 1981. Attention and Self-Regulation: A Control Theory Approach to Human Behavior. New York: Springer-Verlag. [https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4612-5887-2]
  • Cheng, W. and M. Warren. 2005. Peer assessment of language proficiency. Language Testing 22(1), 93-121. [https://doi.org/10.1191/0265532205lt298oa]
  • Cho, S. 2011. The effects of giving peer feedback: Case studies of Korean learners of English. English Language and Linguistics 17(2), 101-125. [https://doi.org/10.17960/ell.2011.17.2.004]
  • Choi, I. 2000. Construct validation of English simulated oral proficiency interview test method facets. Applied Linguistics 16(1), 215-246.
  • Choi, T. and S. Yun. 2012. English and Chinese speaking strategies of Korean university students. Foreign Languages Education 19(4), 53-77.
  • Cisero, C. A. 2006. Does reflective journal writing improve course performance? College Teaching 54(2), 231-236. [https://doi.org/10.3200/CTCH.54.2.231-236]
  • Cohen, A. 1987. Student processing of feedback on their compositions. In A. L. Wenden and J. Rubin, eds., Learner Strategies in Language Learning, 57-69. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.
  • Cohen, A. and M. Cavalcanti. 1990. Feedback on written compositions: Teacher and student verbal reports. In B. Kroll, ed., Second Language Writing: Research Insights for the Classroom, 155-177. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
  • Dheram, P. 1995. Feedback as a two-bullock cart: A case study of teaching writing. ELT Journal 49(2), 160-168. [https://doi.org/10.1093/elt/49.2.160]
  • Ehrman, M. and R. Oxford. 1995. Cognition plus: Correlates of language learning success. The Modern Language Journal 79(1), 67-89. [https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-4781.1995.tb05417.x]
  • Farh, J. and G. Dobbins. 1989. Effects of self-esteem on leniency bias in self-reports of performance: A structural equation model analysis. Personnel Psychology 42(4), 835-850. [https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1744-6570.1989.tb00677.x]
  • Ferris, D. 1995. Student reactions to teacher response in multiple-draft composition classroom. TESOL Quarterly 29, 33-53. [https://doi.org/10.2307/3587804]
  • Fletcher, C. 1997. Self-awareness: A neglected attribute in selection and assessment? International Journal of Selection and Assessment 5(3), 183-187. [https://doi.org/10.1111/1468-2389.00058]
  • Garavan, T., M. Morely and M. Flynn. 1997. 360 Degree feedback: Its role in employee development. Journal of Management Development 16, 134-147. [https://doi.org/10.1108/02621719710164300]
  • Good, J. and P. Whang. 2002. Encouraging reflection in preservice teachers through response journals. The Teacher Educator 37(4), 254-267. [https://doi.org/10.1080/08878730209555299]
  • Hazucha, J., S. Hezlett and R. Schneider. 1993. The impact of 360-degree feedback on management skills development. Human Resource Management 32(2-3), 325-351. [https://doi.org/10.1002/hrm.3930320210]
  • Hedgcock, J. and N. Lefkowitz. 1992. Collaborative oral/aural revision in foreign language writing instruction. Journal of Second Language Writing 4, 51-70. [https://doi.org/10.1016/1060-3743(92)90006-B]
  • Hettich, P. 1990. Journal writing: Old fare or nouvelle cuisine? Teaching of Psychology 17(1), 36—39. [https://doi.org/10.1207/s15328023top1701_8]
  • Hoshmand, L. 1994. Orientation to Inquiry in a Reflective Professional Psychology. Albany, NY: State University of New York.
  • Kalliath, T. and D. Coghlan. 2001. Developing reflective skills through journal writing in an OD course. Organizational Development Journal 19(4), 61-70.
  • Kang, I. and E-S. Jung. 2009. The reexamination of educational implications of reflective journal: A university class case. The Korean Journal of Educational Methodology Studies 21(2), 93-117.
  • Keh, C. 1990. Feedback in the writing process: A model and methods for implementation. ELT Journal 44(4), 294-304. [https://doi.org/10.1093/elt/44.4.294]
  • Kim, B. 2007. Building metalinguistic awareness through peer feedback in the beginner EFL class. English Teaching 62(4), 169-193. [https://doi.org/10.15858/engtea.62.4.200712.169]
  • Kim, G. 2017. The effects of smartphone-based online interactions: Teacher-student, peer, and small group feedback on university students’ speaking performance. Journal of the Korea English Education Society 16(1), 27-46.
  • Kim, H. 2015. Learner-directed evaluation in college English speaking class: Can peer assessment supplement teacher assessment? English Language Teaching 27(4), 131-151. [https://doi.org/10.17936/pkelt.2015.27.4.007]
  • Kim, N-B. 2016. Effects of free-talking sessions on EFL university students’ attitudes and speaking progress. Modern English Education 17(2), 141-162. [https://doi.org/10.18095/meeso.2016.17.2.07]
  • Kim, Y. and M. Joo. 2010. The effectiveness of diverse types of written feedback: Comparative study of teacher and student feedback. English Language & Literature Teaching 16(4), 133-152.
  • Lee, H-H. and J.-H. Kim. 2009. Classroom assessment of classroom oral proficiency: Focusing on self, peer, and teacher assessment. English Language Teaching 21(4), 241-264. [https://doi.org/10.17936/pkelt.2009.21.4.011]
  • Leki, I. 1990. Potential problems with peer responding in ESL writing classes. CATESOL Journal 3, 5-19.
  • London, M. and J. Smither. 1995. Can multi-source feedback change perceptions of goal accomplishment, self-evaluations and performance related outcomes? Theory based applications and directions for research. Personnel Psychology 48, 803-839. [https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1744-6570.1995.tb01782.x]
  • Lundstrom, K. and W. Baker. 2009. To give is better than to receive: The benefits of peer review to the reviewer’s own writing. Journal of Second Language Writing 18, 30-43. [https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jslw.2008.06.002]
  • Malisuwan, P., J. Nasongkhla and S. Sujiva. 2015. Self-reflection with critical friends and multisource feedback via online social media for students’ oral presentation and self-esteem. Procedia-Social and Behavioral Sciences 174(12), 1021-1025. [https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sbspro.2015.01.1247]
  • Martocchio, J. and T. Judge. 1997. Relationship between conscientiousness and learning in employee training: Mediating influences of self-deception and self-efficacy. Journal of Applied Psychology 82(5), 764-773. [https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.82.5.764]
  • McCarthy, A. and T. Garavan. 1999. Developing self-awareness in the managerial career development process: The value of 360° feedback and the MBTI. Journal of Applied Psychology 82(5), 764-773.
  • McGourty, J., P. Dominick, M. Besterfield-Sacre, L. Shuman and H. Wolfe. 2000. Improving student learning through the use of multisource assessment and feedback. Proceedings, 2000 Frontiers in Education Conference, Kansas City, MO. [https://doi.org/10.1109/FIE.2000.897673]
  • Mezirow, J. 1990. Fostering Critical Reflection in Adulthood: A Guide to Transformative and Emancipatory Learning. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
  • Moon, J. 2006. Learning Journals: A Handbook for Reflective Practice and Professional Development, 2nded. London and NewYork:Routledge. [https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203969212]
  • Nowack, K. 1993. 360-degree feedback: The whole story. Training & Development Journal 47, 69-72.
  • Park, B-J. 2012. The effect of peer feedback on improving English presentation skills. Studies in British and American Language and Literature 105(4), 193-216.
  • Park, C-S. and H.-J. Kim. 2016. The effect of self and peer feedback; Learner autonomy in high school writing classes. Modern English Education 17(3), 53-77. [https://doi.org/10.18095/meeso.2016.17.3.03]
  • Park, K. and K. Lee. 2010. Levels of reflection in reflective EFL learning. Journal of the Korea English Education Society 9(2), 25-48. [https://doi.org/10.18649/jkees.2010.9.2.25]
  • Patri, M. 2002. The influence of peer feedback on self-and peer assessment of oral skills. Language Testing 19(2), 109-131. [https://doi.org/10.1191/0265532202lt224oa]
  • Pellegrino, V. 1994. At the risk of speaking: Risk-management in second language use. ACTR Letter 22(1-3), 6-13.
  • Peters, J. 1991. Teaching Thinking: A Study of Practical Knowledge. Nicholas Publishing: New York.
  • Rivers, W. 2000. An ethnography of metacognitive self-assessment and self-management among experienced language learners. The Modern Language Journal 85(2), 279-290. [https://doi.org/10.1111/0026-7902.00109]
  • Schunk, D. 2001. Social cognitive theory and self-regulated learning. In D. H. Schunk and B. J. Zimmerman, eds., Self-Regulated Learning and Academic Achievement: Theoretical Perspectives, 125-149. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
  • Shin, D. 2001. Revising an ACTFL-SOPI formatted speaking test in Korea: Problems and suggestions. English Teaching 56(2), 309-331.
  • Sohn, E-J., S-K., Yoo and H-W. Shim. 2003. Counselor’s reflection and the development of expertise. The Korean Journal of Counseling 4(3), 367-380.
  • Taylor, S. and R. Bogdan. 1998. Introduction to Qualitative Research Methods: The Search for Meanings, 3rd ed. New York: John Wiley & Sons.
  • Tsui, A. and M. Ng. 2000. Do secondary L2 writers benefit from peer comments? Journal of Second Language Writing 9(2), 147-170. [https://doi.org/10.1016/S1060-3743(00)00022-9]
  • van den Boom, G., F. Paas and J. van Merriënboer. 2007. Effects of elicited reflections combined with tutor or peer feedback on self-regulated learning and learning outcomes. Learning and Instruction 17, 532-548. [https://doi.org/10.1016/j.learninstruc.2007.09.003]
  • Villamil, O. and M. De Guerrero. 1998. Assessing the impact of peer revision on L2 writing. Applied Linguistics 19(4), 491-514. [https://doi.org/10.1093/applin/19.4.491]
  • Wenden, A. 1986. What do second-language learners know about their language learning? A second look at retrospective accounts. Applied Linguistics 7(2), 186-205. [https://doi.org/10.1093/applin/7.2.186]
  • Wohlers, A. and M. London. 1989. Ratings of managerial characteristics: Evaluation difficulty, co-worker agreement, and self awareness. Personnel Psychology 42(2), 235-261. [https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1744-6570.1989.tb00656.x]
  • Zhang, S. 1999. Thoughts on some recent evidence concerning the affective advantage of peer feedback. Journal of Second Language Writing 8(3), 321-326. [https://doi.org/10.1016/S1060-3743(99)80119-2]