GAZI UNIVERSITY
INSTITUTE OF EDUCATIONAL SCIENCES DEPARTMENT OF ENGLISH LANGAUGE TEACHING
THE IMPACT OF E-PORTFOLIO ON THE WRITING SKILLS OF FOREIGN LANGUAGE LEARNERS STUDYING AT ABANT IZZET BAYSAL UNIVERSITY BASIC ENGLISH
PROGRAM
PhD THESIS
By Derya ERICE
GAZI UNIVERSITY
INSTITUTE OF EDUCATIONAL SCIENCES DEPARTMENT OF ENGLISH LANGAUGE TEACHING
THE IMPACT OF E-PORTFOLIO ON THE WRITING SKILLS OF FOREIGN LANGUAGE LEARNERS STUDYING AT ABANT IZZET BAYSAL UNIVERSITY BASIC ENGLISH
PROGRAM
PhD THESIS
By Derya ERICE
Supervisor
Assist. Prof. Dr. Abdullah ERTAŞ
APPROVAL
Derya ERICE’nin “The Impact of E-Portfolio Writing Skills of Foreign Language Learners Studying at Abant Izzet Baysal University Basic English Program” başlıklı tezi ... tarihinde, jürimiz tarafından Doktora Tezi olarak kabul edilmiştir.
Adı Soyadı İmza
Üye (Baskan): ………... ... Üye : ... ... Üye : ... ... Üye : ... ... Üye : (Tez Danışmanı)... ...
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
I would like to express my gratitude firstly to my advisor Assist.Prof.Dr.Abdullah ERTAŞ for his guidance and support throughout the challenging process. I also thank the jury members, especially to Prof. Dr. Abdulvahit ÇAKIR and Assist. Prof. Dr. Arif SARIÇOBAN for their interest and advice shaping the content of my dissertation.
I owe a special debt to Sedat AKAYOĞLU for his support, understanding and help throughout the process; in the topic selection and editing stages; but, especially for leading me to work on this area of study CALL. Without him and his encouragement, I would not be aware of how valuable and comprehensive this field is in need of further research. Additionally, my heartfelt thanks go to Ferudun SEZGİN who helped me with the statistical analysis spending his precious time to analyze the data.
I most want to thank my family; my parents, my sister and brother for their sacrifice and indulgence. I always knew that they were following and supporting what I have been doing with their deepest sincerity though they might know the details of my study.
I also gratefully acknowledge the institutional support; Basic English Language Program coordinators and teachers especially Özlem GÖK and Gülay KARABULUT who involved in this project with their students. My final thanks go to participants of this study; Basic English Language Program pre-intermediate level students for their willingness and effort.
ÖZET
ELEKTRONIK PORTFOLYO KULLANIMININ ABANT IZZET BAYSAL ÜNİVERSİTESİ HAZIRLIK PROGRAMI YABANCI DİL ÖĞRENCİLERİNİN YAZMA BECERİLERİNE
ETKİSİ Erice, Derya
Doktora, İngiliz Dili Eğitimi Bilim Dalı Tez Danışmanı: Yrd. Doç. Dr. Abdullah ERTAŞ
Kasim- 2008
Bu çalışma elektronik portfolyonun İngilizce dil becerileri orta düzey seviyesinde olan öğrencilerin yazma becerileri üzerindeki etkilerini araştırmaktadır. Uygulama öncesi ve sonrasında yapılan testlerden edinilen verilere dayanarak, elektronik portfolyo grubundaki öğrencilerin dosya olarak portfolyo tutan öğrencilerden yazma becerilerinde daha başarılı oldukları ortaya çıkmaktadır. Deneklerden 2007-2008 akademik yılı Güz döneminde Abant İzzet Baysal Üniversitesi’nde 10 hafta boyunca çevrimiçi sınıfta portfolyo tutmaları istenmiştir. Nicel veri toplama araçları Öğrenme için Motivasyon Stratejileri Anketi, Bilgisayara Karşı Tutum Anketi ve Bilgisayar Okuryazarlığı Formudur.
Çalışmanın sonuçlarına göre; 1) Dijital ortam ikinci dilde yazma becerilerine olumlu katkıda bulunmaktadır. 2) Bilgisayar kullanma deneyimi ve bilgisayar sahibi olmak kullanıcının bilgisayara karşı tutumunu özellikle de kaygı seviyesini etkiler. 3) Elektronik portfolyo bu konuda eğitimli ve istekli öğretmenlerin ve idari personelin desteği ile yabancı dil eğitimi müfredatına dahil edilebilir. Bu çalışmanın sonuçları öğretmenlere, idarecilere, ailelere ve öğrencilere yazma becerilerini değerlendirmek için bilgisayarın etkili bir araç olarak kullanılabileceği alternatif bir değerlendirme yöntemiyle ilgili bakış açısı katacaktır.
Anahtar kelimeler: Yabanci dil eğitimi, portfolyo, yazma becerileri, bilgisayar destekli yabancı dil eğitimi
ABSTRACT
THE IMPACT OF E-PORTFOLIO ON THE WRITING SKILLS OF FOREIGN LANGUAGE LEARNERS STUDYING AT ABANT IZZET BAYSAL UNIVERSITY BASIC ENGLISH
PROGRAM Erice, Derya
PhD Dissertation, Department of English Language Teaching Supervisor: Assist. Prof. Dr. Abdullah ERTAŞ
November- 2008
This study explores the effectiveness of e-portfolio on developing the writing skills of the English language learners at the pre-intermediate level. Using data from the tests administered before and after the treatment, it is revealed that e-portfolio group outperformed paper portfolio group in their writing skills. The participants were asked to enroll in an online classroom setting to keep their task based e-portfolio paragraphs and sentences for 10 weeks in the Fall semester of 2007-2008 academic year at Abant Izzet Baysal University. The Motivation Strategies for Learning Questionnaire (MSLQ) and Computer Attitude Questionnaire (CAQ) were applied in addition to Computer Literacy Survey to collect the quantitative data.
The results suggest that 1) The digital environment contributes to second language writing skills. 2) Computer experience and ownership influence the computer attitudes in specific computer anxiety. 3) E-portfolio can be integrated into foreign language teaching curriculum when trained and willing teachers are involved with support from the administration. The findings of this study give insight to teachers, administrators, parents and students as well as an alternative way of assessing writing skills through computers as a medium.
Keywords: Foreign language teaching, portfolio, writing skills, computer assisted language learning
TABLE OF CONTENTS APPROVAL ... i ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS... ii ÖZET ... iii ABSTRACT ... iv TABLE OF CONTENTS ...v LIST OF TABLES ... xi
LIST OF FIGURES ... xii
LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS... xiii
CHAPTER I ...1
INTRODUCTION ...1
1.0 Introduction ...1
1.1 Background to the Study ...1
1.2 Aim of the Study ...3
1.3. Statement of the Problem ...4
1.4. Research Questions ...5
1.5. Scope of the study ...6
1.6. Methodology ...7
1.7. Assumptions and Limitations ...7
1.9. Conclusion ...8
CHAPTER 2 ...9
REVIEW OF LITERATURE ...9
2.0 Introduction ...9
2.1 Second Language Learning and Writing Skills ...9
2.2 Process Writing ... 11
2.3 Feedback from Multiple Sources ... 14
2.4 Assessment and Evaluation ... 18
2.4.1 Types of Assessment... 20
2.4.2 Alternative Assessment ... 21
2.4.3 Web-based Assessment ... 22
2.5 Assessing Writing Skills ... 24
2.6 Alternative Assessment in Writing: Portfolio ... 26
2.6.1 Definition ... 26
2.6.2 Types of Portfolio ... 27
2.6.3 Content of Portfolio ... 29
2.7 Portfolio Use ... 31
2.7.1 Portfolio Use in Language Classes ... 31
2.7.2 European Language Portfolio (ELP) and eELP ... 36
2.9 Use of Portfolio for Reflective Teaching and Learning ... 39
2.9.1 For Learning ... 39
2.9.2 For Teaching ... 41
2.10 Educational Use of Technology ... 43
2.11 Computer Assisted Language Learning: CALL ... 45
2.12 Historical and Theoretical Background to Technology Use... 49
2.13 Advantages and Disadvantages of Technology Use ... 54
2.14 Computer Mediated Writing: Practice and Assessment ... 56
2.15 E-portfolio ... 60
2.15.1 Definition and Use ... 60
2.15.2 Portfolio versus E-portfolio ... 64
2.15.3 Advantages and Disadvantages of E- portfolio ... 66
2.15.4 E-portfolio in Practice ... 68
2.15.5 CALL and E-portfolio Research in Turkey ... 72
2.16 Affective Factors in Technology Use ... 75
2.16.1 Changes in the Computer Attitude... 75
2.16.2 Change in the Computer Use Related Motivation Levels ... 79
2.17 Conclusion ... 79
CHAPTER 3 ... 80
3.0 Introduction ... 80
3.1 Research Design ... 80
3.2 Participants ... 80
3.3 Data Collection Procedure ... 81
3.4 Data Collection Instruments ... 82
3.4.1 Computer Literacy Survey ... 83
3.4.2 Computer Attitude Questionnaire ... 83
3.4.3 The Motivated Strategies for Learning Questionnaire ... 84
3.4.4 Self-assessment Instrument: European Language Passport ... 85
3.5 Data Collection Environment: Dokeos... 85
3.5.1 Features of Dokeos ... 87
3.5.2 Advantages and Disadvantages of Dokeos ... 92
3.6 Data Collection Process ... 93
3.7 Conclusion ... 98
CHAPTER 4 ... 99
FINDINGS AND DISCUSSION ... 99
4.0 Introduction ... 99
4.1 Computer Literacy Survey ... 99
4.2 Computer Attitude Questionnaire ... 100
4.2.2 Importance Subscale ... 105
4.2.3 Enjoyment subscale ... 107
4.3 Motivated Strategies for Learning Questionnaire (MSLQ) ... 110
4.4 Pre and Post Test to Assess Writing Skills ... 111
4.5 Portfolio Assessment: 10-week Project ... 115
4.6 The course syllabus content ... 118
4.7 Ten-week Portfolio Tasks ... 118
4.8 The Portfolio Interview ... 126
4.9 Teacher Checklist ... 129
4.10 Checklist for Peer Review ... 129
4.11 Self-assessment instrument: European Language Passport ... 130
4.12 Analysis of the Portfolio Group Process ... 132
4.13 Analysis of the E-portfolio Group Process ... 133
4.14 Discussion of the Findings... 136
4.15 Conclusion ... 148
CHAPTER 5 ... 149
CONCLUSIONS AND SUGGESTIONS ... 149
5.0 Introduction ... 149
5.1 Conclusions ... 149
5.3 Conclusion ... 155 BIBLIOGRAPHY ... 156 APPENDICES
LIST OF TABLES
Table 1: Stages of CALL in History by Warschauer (2002) ... 51
Table 2: Stages of CALL in history by Bax (2003) ... 52
Table 3: Factor Analysis Results for CAQ ... 101
Table 4: Descriptive Statistics for the Anxiety Subscale ... 103
Table 5: ANOVA Results for the Anxiety Subscale ... 103
Table 6: Descriptive Statistics for the Importance Subscale ... 105
Table 7: ANOVA Results for the Importance Subscale ... 106
Table 8: Descriptive Statistics for the Enjoyment Subscale ... 108
Table 9: ANOVA Results for the Enjoyment Subscale ... 108
Table 10: T-test Results on Learner Motivation Levels ... 111
Table 11: Mean Averages of the Experiment and Control Group Test Scores ... 113
Table 12: Two-factor ANOVA Results with Repeated Measures on one-factor for the Experiment and Control Group Pre-Post Test Scores ... 114
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure 1: Main Interface of Dokeos user courses ... 87
Figure 2: Interface for home page of the e-portfolio application ... 89
Figure 3: Interface for Dokeos temporary unavailability ... 97
Figure 4: Change in the Mean Values of the Anxiety Subscale ... 104
Figure 5: Change in the Mean Values of the Importance Subscale ... 107
Figure 6: Change in the Mean Values of the Enjoyment Subscale... 109
Figure 7: Change in the Mean Values of Pre-Post Test Scores ... 115
Figure 8: The Interface of Peer Review ... 134
Figure 9: The Interface of Reporting Function ... 135
LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS
AIBU: Abant Izzet Baysal University
DILMER: Language Teaching and Research Center CALL: Computer Assisted Language Learning: CAQ: Computer Attitude Questionnaire
CMC: Computer Mediated Communication EFL: English as a Foreign Language ELP: European Language Portfolio ELT: English Language Teaching ETS: Educational Testing Services ESL: English as a Second Language MoNE: Ministry of National Education
MSLQ: Motivated Strategies for Learning Questionnaire TOEFL: Test of English as a Foreign Language
CHAPTER I
INTRODUCTION
1.0 Introduction
The purpose of this study is to see the impact of e-portfolio use of pre-intermediate level foreign language learners that are studying at Abant İzzet Baysal University (AIBU), English Language Program on their writing skills development throughout one semester of instruction.
The ultimate aim of this study, in accordance with the benefits of integrating technology to alternative assessment methods is trying to create an atmosphere where one can develop self-confidence through self reflection skills, be motivated, gain competence, follow and practice innovations while improving writing skills in a foreign language.
1.1 Background to the Study
Along with the proliferation of new technologies emerged the need for technology that has also been increasingly realized by the educators and administrators who consider its benefits and practical uses parallel to the educational goals. For language learners technology- thereby computers and the Internet provide many opportunities like communicating the native speakers in an authentic written environment and even orally provided with a basic instrument; the microphone.
Cole et al. (2000) briefly stated the advantages of using computers for educational purposes as enabling understanding in context, taking an active role in practice, leading to self- paced learning, accessing the information with ease, and finally, creating an atmosphere for independent and discovery learning that could be fun and challenging. Moreover, technology use provides equal opportunities for all learners which can sometimes be impossible in the real classroom setting and an interdisciplinary approach in support with content based instruction approach to language teaching. A few of the challenges for the integration of technology are the physical readiness of school buildings, computers’ locations in laboratories rather than classes and lack of general technical support. Besides, one always needs to keep in mind the legal issues and ethical concerns even when copying a picture or downloading a document that requires a meta-awareness on the copyright laws.
Another problematic issue in language teaching is how to assess each skill. Many techniques and methods offered authentic ways of effective assessment; however, the issue still remains unresolved at the satisfactory level. For writing skills, the challenge arises focusing on assessing the final version of texts that is the product and considering mostly the form not the meaning. More specifically, alternatives for assessing writing have been worked on and a shift to the process was observed offering the portfolio use as one of the most powerful ways of assessment when utilized effectively.
The integration of alternative assessment types and technology can define the scope of the study. Therefore, this study is limited to electronic portfolios that are analyzed in a broader context. Many applications of e-portfolio use (Tierney, Carter, and Desai, 1991; Al Kahtani, 1999; O’Malley & Valdez Pierce, 1996; Cole, Ryan, Kick, and Mathies, 2000; Bryant & Timmins, 2002; Chang et al., 2004) resulted in positive findings where its use contributes to development of language skills mostly the writing skills.
1.2 Aim of the Study
This study with the purpose of observing the impact of e-portfolio will help to see both the effect of technology use and process oriented assessment. Since this study is concerned with the process and not the product of the learning, the reflected continuum is expected to provide insights from the instructor and learners at both ends. Traditionally, tests lack interaction, self-reflection, and monitoring. In today’s perspective on evaluation, the demands require a variety of assessment tools depending on the instruction (instructor, teaching methodology etc.) and the learner (strategies, styles, needs, and interests etc.). Authentic and alternative assessments have been on demand in search of a well-qualified and realistic evaluation. The purposes of performance assessment systems, a commonly used one of which is portfolios, are listed by Bryant and Timmins (2002: 39) as to influence and inform instruction and curriculum in the direction of teaching problem-solving, critical thinking, and good writing skills. To monitor student progress, to improve balance among curriculum, instruction, and assessment and lastly, to hold schools accountable for the assessment systems are the additional purposes.
The language skill worked on in this study was selected as writing; because it is the most commonly used way of assessing student performance mainly by written exams. It is solid to record with ease and to be analyzed by many partners like teachers and parents. Writing in its nature integrates other skills and is generally used to diagnose the problems. The written form is a proof of success and failures requiring skills of critical thinking, reflection, discipline and committing (White, 1987). Performance based assessment allows learners to display what they have learnt and what they are able to. In other words, alternative assessment in line with the curricular goals provides evidence for basic as well as higher level skills such as researching and problem solving. Furthermore, it assists in learning encouraging good instruction and relating to the curriculum outcomes. In this type of assessment, tests are referred rarely; instead a link is built among parents, educators and students. Higher thinking skills, meta-cognition and reflection are promoted emphasizing its feature as individualized. This study upon realization of
lack of research investigates an alternative assessment form integrated with technology aiming to close the gap in the literature of works in Turkey on a very specific topic.
The underlying theory of this study is constructivism where learners actively involve in constructing meaning with a focus on process. In language learning, learners construct language input processing making sense of the language themselves. The tasks performed in the learning process should be developed considering the cognitive maturity of the learners (Williams & Burden, 1997: 23). In this study, students both engage in creating their own paragraphs, portfolios and in decision making and selection processes required that are predicted to increase the sense and feeling of ownership.
1.3. Statement of the Problem
Technology, by all means, has been part of our daily and professional lives and has gained momentum with the arrival of the Internet. The availability of computers in offices and homes has increased dramatically; that is observed in the educational areas as well. Ministry of National Education in Turkey has been conducting nationwide projects to increase the rate of computer availability and literacy. Support to Computer-aided Education project reports statistical data of 2008 as that in 35581 primary schools, there are 130.430 computers and 6 out of 100 access computers in Turkey compared to the rate of 11/100 in Europe (http://www.bilgisayarliegitimedestek.org/kampanya_hakkinda.php). This availability is expected to influence the rate of computer use in the educational settings.
On the other hand, problems in evaluation though various attempts have not been solved throughout the years. The main reason for this unsolved matter is attributed to the complexity of the issues and the challenge of finding proper answers in the given time. One of the main conditions that necessitate a new approach to assessment are that tests are not sufficient to evaluate all skills, even the best tests lack some authenticity, validity or reliability (Hughes, 2003).
The literature on foreign language assessment issues in Turkey is far from being forming a baseline for this study; the lack of empirical research on assessment both traditional and alternative forms was the leading motive in addition to the personal professional experience. This research will be a comprehensive analysis of alternative assessment of English language, serving both as a conceptual and practical framework for the context in Turkey. Teachers, students, English language program directors, and language policy experts may benefit from the findings of this study because it aims to fill the process oriented evaluative gaps in English language teaching with a focus on writing skills.
This paper aims to provide some guidelines that might serve as partial solutions to the problems in English language evaluation for teachers at least by examining the issues holistically. Additionally, the outcomes are valuable for administrators participating in the study having seen the outcomes and potential referents while providing some concrete as well as practical applications.
1.4. Research Questions
The research questions posed in this study are the following:
I. Is there a significant difference between the e-portfolio experimental group and the paper portfolio control group in terms of attitude towards educational use of computers?
II. Is there a significant difference between the e-portfolio experimental group and the paper portfolio control group in terms of anxiety towards educational use of computers?
III. Is there a significant difference between the e-portfolio experimental group and the paper portfolio control group in terms of importance given to computers?
portfolio control group in terms of enjoyment towards educational use of computers?
V. Is there a significant difference between the e-portfolio experimental group and the paper portfolio control group in terms of writing skills development?
1.5. Scope of the study
The study is conducted at Abant İzzet Baysal University, Language Teaching and Research Center (DİLMER) (http://www.dilmer.ibu.edu.tr/index0.html). The participants are the learners of Basic School of Education at DİLMER. There are 47 students, 23 of whom are experiment and 24 are control group participants. The academic year (see Appendices) lasts for 14 weeks including the holidays for festivals (Ramadan and Sacrifice).
At AIBU, several majors offer courses in English mainly at the Faculty of Science and Letters. At the beginning of each academic year, a proficiency test as a placement test is administered for those students and ones who are not proficient enough to follow the courses stay in preparation school minimum a semester or a year long. The preparation classes are organized and held by and at DİLMER. DİLMER is also responsible for preparing English language tests for the academic staff, coordinate and arrange international affairs and work on the related paperwork. At the end of each semester, students are given a chance to transfer to their departments if they can pass the semester-end test. If they fail they keep staying at the English language preparation school for another semester that is till the end of the academic year. Throughout the year, students are instructed in English for 30 hours a week; they are first grouped as ‘elementary, pre-intermediate and sometimes intermediate’ depending on the proficiency levels of the students at that time. In addition, in some years there might be more pre-intermediate classes than in the other years; the number of classes fluctuates. The courses are organized around skills; there are courses of writing and reading, speaking and listening for each group taught by different teachers specialized in certain skills.
1.6. Methodology
The data were collected both qualitatively and quantitatively. Two questionnaires (Computer Attitude Questionnaire and Motivated Strategies for Learning Questionnaire) and a survey on computer literacy to get basic information about participants were administered. The portfolio process for 10 weeks was followed assigning tasks, giving feedback, managing the feedback and guiding the learners. The data were examined through statistical analysis for social sciences. The portfolios were analyzed using checklists for peers and teachers/ raters. Furthermore, a pre and post test were administered in the form of task based writing to see the development in their writing skills at the paragraph level.
1.7. Assumptions and Limitations
One of the limitations of this study is its quantitative scope; it is limited to 47 students and with the location as Basic School of English at Abant İzzet Baysal University in Bolu, Turkey. Moreover, the findings are gathered and limited to 10 week period.
Secondly, it could be better if the instructor of the course themselves conducted the study as an action researcher responsible for the whole process. A researcher as an outsider cannot control all the variables at once as much as an instructor can; amongst all students do not understand the role of researcher focusing on just the effect on their grades. It would have been more productive if the researcher had conducted the study in one of her own classes where she could also observe the process by giving oral feedback and reinforcement in addition to solving problems face-to-face.
Thirdly, the rate of computer literacy skills among the students was another limitation; or, even if they are literate, they might not be willing to participate in such implementations. Availability of computers, technical staff and resources are likely to be other problems. As the
Basic Language Program at AIBU does not have the computer laboratory facility, for this study the computer laboratory of the Faculty of Letters was used.
Finally, another major constraint in the implementation of the system turned out to be lack of samples of portfolios both paper and electronic to be presented to the learners. They were just guided the online versions of portfolios to get the general idea of how portfolios can be designed. This is because the researcher had limited access to paper based portfolios at that time that truly reflects the process writing.
1.8. Definitions of Terms
CALL: Computer Assisted Language Learning. “the search for and study of applications of the computer in language teaching and learning.” (Levy, 1997, p. 1 cited in Levy, 2005)
CMC: Computer Mediated Communication in which computers are used as a tool.
Synchronous CMC: It is a part of CMC in which the users are online at the same time. To communicate users should be available on the net. Eg. chat and instant messaging
Asynchronous CMC: It is another kind of CMC where users are not necessarily online at the same time. Eg. e-mails, message boards, and blogs.
1.9. Conclusion
In this chapter the rationale, research questions, significance of the study, and definition of terms have been described. In the next chapter, the literature related to this study will be reviewed. In the third chapter, Methodology, detailed information about the research design, participants, instruments and the data collection procedure will be described. In the fourth chapter the results will be presented and, the fifth chapter will conclude the study.
CHAPTER 2
REVIEW OF LITERATURE
2.0 Introduction
The chapter provides a comprehensive review of literature under three major headings: second language writing skills, alternative assessment and technology use in education. The topics are detailed from a variety of perspectives.
2.1 Second Language Learning and Writing Skills
Writing might be defined as the process of exploring one’s thoughts and learning from the act of writing itself; not just representation of language in the written form. It is not information based all the time; as a productive and active skill it is rather recording an idea or ideas developing in process. Graham and Perin (2007:445) pointed out the importance of developing better writing skills especially for the purposes of communicating, getting higher grades in courses where writing is at the centre of instruction. Moreover, it is necessary while applying for universities requiring performance of written tasks and jobs as well that at least seek skills of writing technical reports or formal electronic mails. They also report that writing is not taught efficiently in class and is one of the most poorly taught if done so or neglected skills in the schools; a critical number of students are below their grade level proficiency at the basic compulsory education period.
Silva and Matsuda (2001) analyzed the foreign language writing skills in their studies. It is stated that lack of linguistic competence might negatively affect the revision behaviors of EFL writers, as observed in revision strategies learners use during their composing and organization
period. In the study by Shaw and Liu (1998) pre and post instruction writing evaluation displayed that after a two- to three-month EFL course students wrote more formal texts at the end of the course, with few changes in syntactic complexity, text organization, lexical variety and the number of errors. Another study (Grant and Ginther, 2000) with the focus of changes in the students’ writing concluded that they wrote longer essays with greater lexical variety, more cohesion, frequent use of connectors and reference words, and varied use of tense and mood, more modal verbs, subordination and passive voice. Haan and Esch (2005:114) in their longitudinal project lasting from 2002-2008 examined the student proficiency in writing throughout the academic years and compared the holistic and quantitative measurements. In sum, they reported that more proficient students wrote longer texts than those of the lower level proficient, in addition longer words are created but not signifying the best pieces of work all the time.
Zamel (1987:267) interviewed eight ESL students about their writing experiences and what students reflected was that they were annoyed when the topic was unrelated to what they had discussed in class or they had no interest in. The students enjoyed brainstorming in the class and writing on that particular topic, as they stated writing about what they knew was motivating. Another outcome from the interviews showed that only one student composed a formal outline feeling sense of control over the text. When writing they had the time to reflect, reconsider, reread, change partial or the whole text and end with a feeling of accomplishment. The corrections were mainly at the lexical and syntactic level at the beginning moving to more sentence level editions in the later stages. Mostly, the form like vocabulary, tense and punctuation were corrected. Some sentences were rewritten and some students used their own symbols to point out the mistakes.
Jenks (2003) tried to seek the effects of certain methodologies on writing to prove the efficacy of one method to another; thus, perpetuating the belief that a better pedagogical approach, particularly one that focused on usage, structure or correct form would improve writing skills of students. Little attention was paid to more important elements such as purpose, the process of composing itself and the audience for whom the composition is being written. However, the focus of emphasis on composition shifted to the process of writing itself (Cowie,
1995; Matsuda, 2002; Muncie, 2002) with the realization of necessity for understanding the process rather than start teaching how to instruct writing to see the outcome concretely.
2.2 Process Writing
Process writing with the idea of shifting from a simple writing task as a way of practicing grammar moved the writing practice to the more production level around ideas drafted and revised. It covered not just the writing but to composing and how to write where the writer consciously involved in the whole process (Muncie, 2000:47). Cowie (1995:182) defines process writing as generating ideas, selecting and organizing followed by drafting which is a cycle of thought process linked to production in writing. It also has sub-tasks like revision by peers as well as the teacher and editing by writing the text again and again after revision. The shift from product to process writing and evaluation methods and strategies has had a profound effect on writing instruction. Firstly, the variety of tasks have increased dramatically such as: Journal writing, peer conferencing, collaboration in small groups, brainstorming, outlining, free writing, multiple drafting and peer revision, writing for different audience, class publication and different forms of genre based writing. Second, the writer became more autonomous in that the process of writing is extended to longer periods of time at the writer’s own pace and effort provided with basic guidelines. Thirdly, the role of teachers and students shifted through a more constructivist based approach that is in the simplest terms students learn by doing.
Modern researchers in writing have not given up digging the underlining pedagogies of process writing yet and they still continue “discovering” process writing (Matsuda, 2002). Some focused on its advantages and stages (Goldstein & Carr, 1996; Jenks, 2003), more recent ones on process assessment including alternatives (Walker and Riu, 2008). Accordingly, the main focus in the studies of the last debate is the collaborative and cooperative nature of writing, dating back to emergence of Social constructivism.
Matsuda (2002) believes focus on process revealed the neglected aspects of writing in learning and teaching and distinguished three complementary approaches to teaching writing. First one is writing towards communicative goals with a message to give across; secondly,
coordinating and managing processes like organizing the content and editing which form writing. Lastly, understanding the social context of the process in a given environment from a broader and multiple perspective.
Goldstein and Carr (1996:2) questioning the use of process writing defines it as a series of strategies blended into the before, during and after writing activities like drafting or revising that is also named as ‘process-oriented instruction’. The stages in writing include thinking, writing and rewriting, that is also referred to as prewriting, writing and post-writing. The students are asked about their teachers’ encouragement in getting prepared and ready for the writing task that requires sources other than the coursebook and writing more than one draft for each activity. More than half of the teachers reported to have been asked for preplanning and drafting in their courses. Instructed students are found to be more successful writers than those without preplanning instruction. Moreover, when more than one writing process was taught students outperformed.
The stages of process in writing have been stated by Jenks (2003:3) as prewriting, drafting, revising, editing and publishing. The phase starts with brainstorming, clarifying the aim and the topic, outlining, getting some feedback and revising, focusing attention to areas that needs to be developed, finalizing the written text and followed by its demonstration. In each stage, other linguistics skills are practiced like during prewriting brainstorming generally is pursued through speaking and listening to each other likewise oral feedback also provides a chance to practice and exchange ideas and comments. Reading is by all means an integral part either to collect information on the topic or reading one or another’s texts.
General procedure in producing written texts in the classroom context is such as that teachers assign topics to the learners as an in class or homework task and grade the papers returned. Matsuda (2003) pointed out the transformation from the product oriented approach to the process. This shift gave way to topic selection, capability building and awareness increasing as well as the discovery of individual strategies. With these features the new approach turned the writing classes into more student-centred places with constant interaction between peers and the teacher where feedback is provided and ideas are exchanged consistently. In the process approach, discourse and cognitive aspects are emphasized so that students can get aware of the
idea generation, organization and development steps. Therefore, students are expected to be competent in content, organization and language issues by developing their competencies.
In the English courses Walker and Riu (2008:20) piloted the Extended Writing Project (EWP) to form the coherence between process writing and its assessment improving student independence from traditional models. With an overall positive feedback from the students, the project had a few shortcomings like ineffective use of error sheets as some students could not identify the errors or did not know how to handle the errors. Marking and assessing the rubric was problematic due to distribution of scores for each criterion were loaded with different weightings. EWP is concluded as a good alternative way of assessing the process with utmost student involvement.
Emig (1971) reported the process with a focus on experiencing throughout rather than evaluating the product and identified writing as more like conscious learning than teaching. Writing processes varied and were in the recursive form not linear. Writing requires seeing the whole; its relation and dependence on features like style, pace and its social function cannot act in isolation. Krashen’s (1982) ‘Monitor Model’ suggests two discrete processes operating in second language development: conscious learning and subconscious acquisition also known as learned and acquired system where language develops better when it is subconscious. The implication of this model proposes that process writing allows this type of acquisition due to its recurring and recursive character with a focus on meaning. Furthermore writing provides abundant amount of opportunities to practice the target language.
In the study by Bereiter, Scardamalia and Steinbach (1984) two groups of children were compared; process writing group and a group continuing their routine classroom activities. The first group worked with cue cards for better planned, goal-oriented communicative output. The experiment group demonstrated that students shifted towards a reflective style of composition, with more proof of reflective and complex thought than the ones in the control group. Moreover, good writers differed from poor writers in that they examined the content and rhetoric while cognitively engaged. Therefore, in this study higher-order cognitive skills are stimulated through process writing resulting in positive outcomes. It is also seen that planning at a specific stage or revising the final product is not itself necessary to reach higher-order cognitive processes. Additionally, it is commented that process writing activities like brainstorming,
outlining and journal keeping are designed to focus on generating ideas; free-writing and deferred revision are designed to promote fluent translation; peer revision and collaboration are designed to focus on revision.
Badger and White (2000) emphasized that process writing mainly deal with the linguistic skills not the knowledge; like how to write not what to write. They compared process, product and genre approaches to writing listing the advantages and disadvantages for each. For process writing, it is stated that generally types of texts and why they had been written were ignored and insufficient linguistic knowledge was provided. Therefore, they suggested a blended approach called process genre approach combining context and knowledge for different types of writing.
As stated by Brown (2001) without doubt process writing seems to be the current approach to writing throughout which specific stages are followed and reflection in the form of giving and receiving feedback is experienced.
2.3 Feedback from Multiple Sources
The effect of feedback on the quality and progress of student writing has been interrogated (Cowie, 1995; Muncie, 2000; Born, 2003; Hyland and Hyland, 2006) with some contradictory findings. First factor to analyze is the type of feedback, its characteristic as either surface or global influences the following drafts of the text. Surface feedback is mainly related to surface structure like grammar, spelling, mechanics and syntax; whereas, global feedback is more on organization, cohesion and coherence at the deep structure. Feedback has been studied in a variety of studies with emphasis on its types (Fathman and Whalley, 1990; Cowie, 1995), who to provide and when to be provided (Muncie, 2000; Born, 2003; Rollinson, 2005), teacher beliefs on feedback (Berry, 2006; Lee, 2008) and lastly role of technology in providing feedback (Schultz, 2000; Tuzi, 2004; Hyland & Hyland, 2006; Attali & Burstein, 2006).
In a study by Fathman and Whalley (1990) cited in Cowie (1995:181) different types of feedback (none, grammar only, content only and both grammar and content) were provided and
their effects were investigated separately. The findings show that ‘both grammar and content’ feedback was the most useful one pointing out the importance of rewriting also. Secondly, timing of the feedback in process writing has been emphasized for more effective outcomes (Born, 2003; Newman et al., 1996; O’Malley & Valdez Pierce, 1996; Cowie, 1995). The regular and timely feedback students receive increases student commitment to the course Born (2003) states that students understand what the teacher expects and to what extent course and learning goals are met when feedback is provided on a regular basis.
Twenty nine students from a writing class in a Japanese university were asked their opinions about feedback and its types. Peer feedback was valued with an average rate of 4.03 (sd 0.66) out of 5 that was considered extremely useful to the question of contributing to be a better writer. 26 out of 29 students made changes upon receiving feedback showing the effect and power feedback imposes on the writer. Teachers are seen main source of the feedback as they are knowledgeable, well-equipped with necessary information. Therefore, sometimes teacher feedback is considered not like a guideline but a mandatory comment to be followed as the teacher is the one who grades and what s/he expects needs to be met. Muncie (2000:51) attaches different importance to feedback according to the time when they are provided along the continuum. To him, mid-draft feedback given from the peer is more effective and at the final drafts teacher feedback might be conclusive with latest points to be considered.
Methods of giving feedback are classified by Cowie (1995:187-189) as reformulation, topical structure, student self-monitoring, and peer response. In reformulation, the teacher randomly picks up a paper by a student and reformulates/ rewrites it; afterwards, students check the final version, compare it to their own and start editing. One essential point is that students need prior information and instruction on how to analyze the revised text and to discuss on it for modifications. Topical structure analysis based on coherence examines the sentence structures by drawing them in a map format to clearly visualize how the structures are and how they should be. In the third method, students comment on their text writing with some notes in the margin to be read and commented by the teacher later. Finally, peer response refers to students critiquing each others’ work after having given the guidelines on how to do so. It can be summarized that appropriate and timely feedback positively influences student writing; students are willing to
give and receive feedback and if feedback is based on global errors, related to student concerns, to the point, clear and related, given especially at the earlier drafts and lastly, while students are trained on how to give feedback their learning styles are considered and accordingly feedback is modified and can be best utilized.
Providing feedback either by the teacher or the students is an essential part of the process; (Rollinson, 2005). The feedback by peers is found to be more specific and detailed than that of the teachers; students get used to writing comments on others’ work and become critical first to the peers and then to their own piece of work. Kuriloff (2005:3) observed that within time students become aware of its role and realize that feedback they receive or give thereby the procedure contributes to their learning progress.
Moreover, Hyland and Hyland (2006:83) analyzed the impact, role and place of feedback in writing questioning how it should be delivered, to what extent, and its link to culture and technology. Cowie (1995:183) believed that teacher feedback does not contribute to student writing as it might not be clear, not effective or consistent. To most of the teachers, they should give feedback as students expect and give importance to being corrected for an accurate text. Feedback itself is not the sole factor for improvement in writing and learning the correct form as the learner needs time and practice to internalize it. Another issue is the type of feedback by teachers, either given direct to more challenging, hard to correct errors or indirect to simpler errors that can be treated easily. Learners may benefit from peer feedback building autonomy and self-confidence, feeling that others have been through similar paths and have experiences similar challenges. Feedback is found to increase motivation (Born, 2003) and guide the learner to the right direction; it must be given consistently and in a timely manner (O’Malley & Valdez Pierce, 1996).
Teacher beliefs about written feedback have recently been studied in a variety of contexts among different courses (Lee, 2008; Berry, 2006). Overall feeling about giving feedback to student is negative; sometimes confusing and tiring sometimes frustrating and disappointing. Lee (2008:7) analyzed feedback from 174 texts from 26 teachers and interviewed seven of these teachers in English as a Foreign Language (EFL) setting. It is found that there is a mismatch
between what teachers believe in about giving feedback and the real writing practice in that teachers are sometimes constrained by the school rules to be followed and sometimes by the exams to be administered strictly. Some of the mismatches concluded in the study are that teachers expect their students to identify and correct the mistakes but they do not model it in their own provision. Teachers grade the papers though its downsides like getting the focus on the score not the feedback and knowing the gains of process oriented approach they still use summative function of feedback.
Another recent study on teacher beliefs by Berry (2006:21) where he analyzed the differentiation in teaching according to teacher beliefs in inclusive classes of writing instruction shows that regardless of the fact that disability is seen as a barrier, teachers adapted different approaches. One group believed the use of sequential curriculum where skills and topics are given in order; another group of teachers believed that social interactions would improve writing as a way of expressing oneself and communicating with others through writing. Shared practices and beliefs in these two groups were self-efficacy, uniqueness of approach and environmental approach to writing; that is, not dominantly skills based or natural learning oriented with objectives and problems at the center of the course. Warschauer, Turbee and Roberts (1996), cited in Hyland and Hyland (2006:93) emphasized the active and autonomous role students take when engaged in computer mediated communication during the feedback phase, because students are free and more flexible in questioning and initiating any related discussion. As a supporting research to the quality of computer mediated peer feedback, Tuzi (2004) reported that learners worked and revised on large chunks of language giving e-feedback. As peer feedback is monitored easily when stored online and teachers can easily switch between different screens both students’ autonomy and degree of reflecting on their writing increase (cited in Hyland and Hyland, 2006: 93). On the contrary, students may be overloaded with the comments and have trouble in treating them when stored online. Schultz (2000) realized that revisions are more specific, to the point and local when the interaction is online and global when face-to-face mode (cited in Hyland and Hyland, 2006:94).
Technology has been successfully integrated in giving feedback to written texts. In one form, the automated feedback systems web based application presents multidimensional
comments instantly a few of which can be listed as the Criterion e-rater by the Educational Testing Services (ETS) (www.ets.org/research/erater.html) and MY Access! by Vantage Learning (http://www.vantagelearning.com/school/products/myaccess). The e-rater (Attali & Burstein, 2006) analyzes the texts in terms of its grammar, usage, style, organization and development within the time scope of its scanning. If the learner is ready, willing and open to feedback, whether the feedback is given either explicitly or implicitly influences the effectiveness of the feedback. Within the framework of perception theory, when computer gives feedback by signaling the unnoticed or perceived parts students immediately pay attention to the auditory or visual signals decreasing the risk of making errors or increasing the awareness. Additionally, to social learning theory if one believes that s/he has the ability to perform in the best way and to handle the challenges, s/he tries hard to achieve. For the CALL context, if learners get easily tired of the error messages, unwanted responses and insufficient guidelines from the computers, they may lose their confidence in their learning ability and skill of coping with problems. Therefore, CALL programs should be feasible, and user friendly; once the motivation is lost as well as the self-efficacy it becomes harder to move on with the learning process.
2.4 Assessment and Evaluation
Evaluation and assessment have long been discussed widely as long as something exists to be tested. The history of testing dates back to 200 BC when Chinese had the civil service examinations where people were subjected to pass. In the USA, ETS founded in 1947 is still one of the prominent and trustworthy organizations referred to when standards and benchmarks are concerned. Several problems inevitably arose along with the criticism on the test accountability, skills measured; attention disregarded to be paid to the individual differences and needs (Cole et al., 2000).
Language testing, on the other hand, has been influenced by the teaching methodologies of the time. In 1950s when behaviorism was very influential over the educational areas the focus of the testing was mainly on the form, the drills and language elements. In 1970-80s the trends
were on teaching the language with an emphasis on meaning thereby communicatively; hence, testing shifted to a more integrative form with more authentic tasks (Brown, 2004:8).
Assessment is an ongoing process and an indispensable part of the classroom practices and instruction; any information exchange, question-answer mode or comments during discussions are forms of assessment. Whatever happens in the classroom is either directly or indirectly assessed by the teacher even sometimes unconsciously. Being an assessor becomes a part of teachers’ life (Brown, 2004:4). Madsen (1983) also outlines the changes testing has gone through as from intuitive to scientific and finally the communicative phase. During the intuitive phase, also known as subjective, assessment is based on personal judgments; scientific approach was more on being objective and requiring the specialists to work on it; lastly, real communication including all subskills are evaluated in the communicative phase.
While assessing the purpose is twofold; to see how well the students are doing, their process and progress; on the other hand, to render evaluations of the course, the program and even the instructor himself. In addition, well-prepared tests might change the attitudes of the students positively, increases motivation feeling accomplishment. Some of the reasons for assessment can be counted as identifying and solving the emerging problems immediately, motivating and keeping students in the learning context, getting to know the students better as a whole with their weaknesses and strengths. Lastly, disseminating the outcomes instructors and the rest of the faculty can improve communication and exchange of information (Madsen, 1983). Tests seem to lack interaction, self-reflection, and monitoring in the most traditional terms. In today’s perspective on evaluation, the ongoing demands require a variety of assessment tools depending on a few factors mostly the instruction (instructor, teaching methodology etc) and the learner (needs, interests etc.). Therefore, this need to seek for better ways of assessment accelerates the emergence of authentic and alternative assessments.
2.4.1 Types of Assessment
Brown (2004:5) makes a distinction between informal and formal assessment. Informal assessment is different from formal one in that it can take the form of any comment, any feedback or response that is unplanned and spontaneous in the classroom environment. It can also be written either as a comment on a piece of writing. While the formal one is more structured and systematic like the tests or portfolios that are administered in a planned format.
Assessment can be grouped into two: formative and summative, the latter being the traditional form of assessment where the product is evaluated at the end of the treatment by a test or an exam. Feedback is provided only after the completion of task or a series of tasks in summative assessment; whereas, in the formative form feedback and reflection is all throughout the process of instruction enabling instant realization of problems, challenges, weaknesses and strengths (O’Malley & Valdez Pierce, 1996). All informal assessment can be considered as formative as they are related to the ongoing process and summative assessment types like tests, quizzes, exams are formal aiming to measure the competencies and proficiency the learner achieved so far (Brown, 2004:6).
Another grouping of testing types given by Brown (2004:7) is norm and criterion referenced tests. In the norm-referenced tests test takers are placed in rank order calculating all variables such as the standard deviation, mean and median; whereas, in the criterion-referenced tests test takers are given scores upon completion of a task or test. TOEFL can be an example for norm- referenced and any classroom test for criterion-referenced tests. Moreover, two approaches to testing can be discussed; discrete-point tests aims to test the language elements separately such as developing listening tests independent from other skills that is quite decontextualized. The purpose of integrative tests is to take the language as a whole and assess all skills at the same under a given context like in the cloze tests and dictations.
When traditional and alternative assessments are compared, it is observed that traditional form has decontextualized test items, norm-referenced scores. It is product oriented and focuses on the only one ‘correct’ answer fostering the extrinsic motivation. Nevertheless, alternative assessment seeks for open-ended and creative answers, is formative and process oriented
(Brown, 2004:13). Alternative assessment is defined by Shores and Grace (1998:142) as “any and all assessments that differ from the multiple choice, timed, one-shot approaches that characterize most standardized and many classroom assessment”. Authentic assessment is formulated as “assessments should engage students in applying knowledge and skills in the same way they are used in the real world outside of school.”
2.4.2 Alternative Assessment
With the underlying idea that not all skills and competencies can be assessed through similar standardized tests, in 1990s alternative assessment emerged as a concept to meet the needs of teachers and students. What was offered under the term ‘alternative’ was portfolios, journals, self and peer assessments that are formative and based on process evaluation. This type of assessment require learners to construct and reflect using real-world contexts as much as possible while promoting the higher level thinking and problem solving skills. Most importantly, they allow learners to see their own strengths and weaknesses as well as others’ as they constantly peer review and assess each other. The flexibility and a high degree of involvement alternatives bring to learning process lessen the washback aiming to build intrinsic motivation (Brown, 2004:13).
Performance based assessment allows learners to display what they have learnt so far and what they are able to do with ease. In other words, authentic assessment following the curricular goals provides evidence for basic as well as higher level cognitive skills such as researching and problem solving. Higher level thinking skills, metacognition and reflection are promoted matching the individual features of the learners. Furthermore, it assists in learning how to encourage good instruction and relate to the curriculum outcomes. In this type of assessment, tests are referred rarely; instead ongoing tasks and reflections are evaluated by different assessors and thus, a stronger link is built among parents, educators and students throughout the process (Cole et al., 2000; Born, 2003).
Born (2003) specified for performance assessment that tasks and criteria are essential parts; tasks are outlined and easily made to fit the learning objectives, the course content, and the skills to be assessed. The criteria are to be set prior to tasks so that students should pay attention to the list of standards and conditions to be met to have proven that objectives have been met.
Chang, Wu and Ku (2004:31) pointed out the issues in the traditional testing as being not adequately sensitive to the individual differences and growth. Moreover, the focus of their study conducted in Taiwan was assessing speaking skills based on action research principle. What made portfolio authentic was its tasks from the real contexts and situations. The e-portfolios developed in the format of a website included recorded speaking part and received positive reactions from most of the students (35 out of 37 students).
The most common and popular way of listing the criteria is using a rubric tailored for the tasks and directly to the skills. Two types of rubrics available are the analytic and holistic one (Betts, 1997 cited in Born, 2003); the former is organized under dimensions of specific criteria whereas in the latter there is one dimension for the whole competency areas.
2.4.3 Web-based Assessment
Technology obviously brought innovations, new perspectives and perceptions to our lives, along with what it has brought in a positive direction; it is also bringing several challenges. Firstly, as a contribution when computers are involved the amount of time and money devoted to preparation and expenditure decreases dramatically in most cases. On the contrary, the main disadvantage of the traditional web-based assessment is its lack of authenticity and real life tasks. In addition, it is referred to as inflexible, and with focus on some particular knowledge and skills. Existing paper based tests and exams need to be typed and saved onto the online system or new ones are to be created. The preparation process might be time consuming at the very first trials; however, once users got used time spent is likely to decrease. In addition, in the web based assessment teacher does not have the whole control of the student, the setting and the other variables; students are allowed to take the test or perform the task free from the time and place
constraints. Last but not the least, the teacher might encounter technical problems while administering the test that is online like connection failure or server breakdown even an electricity cut can put the implementation into danger (Born, 2003).
Zhang et al. (2007) discussed the effect of online discussion forums on foreign language skills in China where the instruction was delivered in the most traditional ways with a resistance to technology integration by the teachers. The study collecting data by posttest, survey and interviews with 54 high school students concluded that online discussion improved writing and critical thinking skills in face to face communication, but not reading, grammar or vocabulary. The e-discussions were in a formal writing style format and more complex than spoken form. It is emphasized that the instructor involvement positively influenced attitudes of students.
Brown (1997) predicted the sophistication and development of advanced computer-assisted language testing tools and decrease in the cost of technology. The receptive-response items like multiple choice would shift to productive-response ones removing the organizational limitations and time bounded feature of traditional tests. The main advantages of using computers in language testing were listed as: accuracy in scoring, immediacy in giving feedback, pacing of students free from time constraints, less tiring as questions are given one at a time on the screen and its feasibility in many contexts. Among the disadvantages were lack of computer equipment, screen and graphic capacity, familiarity to computers and computer anxiety.
Born (2003) groups web based assessment as summative and formative; in the traditional summative assessment, tests, quizzes and exams are the main tools. It can now widely be observed that people are conducting quizzes, questionnaires and tests online. On the contrary, formative one bases its ground onto performance that is observed, reinforced and reflected on continuously.
One of the main concerns of the educators about web applications is the risk of cheating (Warschauer and Ware, 2006; Warschauer and Grimes, 2008). Various possible ways of handling the issue of cheating through the web based application are compiled by Born (2003); have students take frequent exams, tests, tasks and homework; form questions leading to discussion not grounded on rote learning. Teachers can set strict time limits for test taking,
check student assignments on a regular basis, revise and update the curriculum thereby the materials, and encourage cooperative work minimizing the risk of cheating where others exist. Additionally, learners generally seem to leave the technology based programs at the beginning of the course.
Warschauer and Grimes (2008:24) discuss the Automated essay scoring (AWE) software used to evaluate essays and give feedback. AWE and human-rater scores were compared and correlations with a single human scorer were found as .80 to .85 range that nearly equals that of two human scorers. The software helped to save some but no improvement was observed in the quantity of writing or the attention needed to be paid to the content and organization. Although the system has some drawbacks like risk of cheating, not being able to address individual needs and interests; it might help to motivate and help learners in their writing journeys. In another study, Warschauer and Ware (2006) challenged the effect of AWE on writing skills; they reported that though extensive research is needed, the studies that had been conducted show that writing skills of students have improved; however whether AWE caused the change was not clear. The software can be improved further after comprehensive research validates its use and impact.
2.5 Assessing Writing Skills
Writing is seen as a concrete way of reflecting one’s performance integrating other skills at the same time as well. It is most commonly referred testing device for examining student performance and development that require thought, attention and discipline. Writing reflects the progress and errors as a proof of success and failures giving clues about the confusions and chaos the writer experiences (White, 1987:259).
Different types of writing might necessitate different treatments and assessing techniques: White (1987) classified as personal (notes, diaries etc.) and institutional (business letters, catalogues, reports etc.). Main genres can also be grouped as academic writing (papers, essays, journals, technical reports, dissertations etc.), job-related writing (letters, reports,
announcements, manuals etc.) and lastly, personal writing (emails, messages, forms, questionnaires, diaries etc.). While working on these types, the learner imitates the mechanics of writing for example to spell correctly which is called imitative writing performance; when pays attention to vocabulary in context or correct grammar that is intensive writing and in the responsive writing require performing task at a specific discourse level by connecting ideas, forming links and turning these into paragraphs; and finally, extensive writing can be an all-purpose writing covering a variety of techniques and strategies to be selected (Brown, 2004).
Once process writing fits into the curriculum, the challenge for evaluation becomes a minor problem. For most of the teachers pertaining to the traditional perspective, the mismatch between the old and the new causes negative feelings like frustration, and uncertainty as well as resistance. These feelings intensify when grading period arrives; however, could be reduced when done as planned at the beginning of the process. Therefore, setting the guidelines timely and using a standardized and specified rubric for that implementation help the process go problem free.
There is a vast majority of techniques and ways of assessing different types of texts; this availability of the various techniques in writing could be explained by the high number of applications in the classroom related to subskills and depending on the style; shifting from formal to informal. Assessing note taking or letter writing is not the same as assessing a persuasive essay. Another factor for this range is long list of criteria to be assessed like mechanics, organization, content with their own sub-criteria (Madsen, 1983). Three common methods for scoring are holistic, primary trait and analytical. A single score for a whole document is given in the holistic scoring. In the second one, only one aspect of the writing is focused to be assessed within a discourse; in the last one, main elements of writing are scored under categories like organization, logical development of ideas, grammar, punctuation/spelling/mechanics, and style and quality. These methods vary depending on the proficiency level of the students and genre of writing as well as the goals of the instruction (Brown, 2004:242).
What is essential is the information to be given about the evaluation criteria by and to the teacher and the student. When the criteria are clear and pre-set, both parties being aware of what to be responsible of, the act of getting ready for the task becomes easy. Moreover, teachers need to keep in mind that the proficiency levels and rate of learning vary between grades that is ages. This differentiation puts additional load to the teacher expected to consider students’ proficiency level, needs and interests. Traditional assessment types are rigid, focus on product and simple behaviors; there is a sense of completeness lacking the process, procedure and personal traits. These are isolated events at the end of the unit or assignment where students act as passive recipients compared to a broader engagement as targeted (O’Malley and Valdez Pierce, 1996).
Portfolios, on the other hand, provide authentic verification of student progress, being dynamic and meaningful based on students’ self-selection and criteria. First and final drafts, revisions, writing notes, anecdotal records can be preserved in portfolios to be graded holistically with an assessment of the continuum.
2.6 Alternative Assessment in Writing: Portfolio
Portfolio is one of the widely used alternative assessment methods mostly utilized in the foreign language and instructional technology classes. What it is, what it covers, its types and how it is used are given in this section in detail.
2.6.1 Definition
The word itself has its Italian equivalence of ‘portafoglio’, ‘portare’ where it means ‘to carry’ (fr. L.) and ‘foglio’ refers to ‘sheet’ (Tierney et al., 1991). Portfolio can also be defined as ‘a hinged cover or flexible case for carrying loose papers, pictures or pamphlets’. As a case to carry the documents of state it refers to the office and functions of a minister of state or member of a cabinet. In the context of economy, such as in a bank ‘the securities held by an investor: the commercial paper held by a financial house’.
