A Washback Study On E-Portfolio Assessment in An

Computer Assisted Language Learning
ISSN: 0958-8221 (Print) 1744-3210 (Online) Journal homepage: http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/ncal20
A washback study on e-portfolio assessment in an

English as a Foreign Language teacher preparation
program
Shao-Ting Alan Hung
To cite this article: Shao-Ting Alan Hung (2012) A washback study on e-portfolio assessment in
an English as a Foreign Language teacher preparation program, Computer Assisted Language
Learning, 25:1, 21-36, DOI: 10.1080/09588221.2010.551756
To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/09588221.2010.551756
Published online: 17 Jan 2012.
Submit your article to this journal
Article views: 992
View related articles
Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at

http://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=ncal20
Download by: [Orta Dogu Teknik Universitesi]
Date: 15 November 2015, At: 02:18

Vol. 25, No. 1, February 2012, 2136
A washback study on e-portfolio assessment in an English as a Foreign

Language teacher preparation program
Downloaded by [Orta Dogu Teknik Universitesi] at 02:18 15 November 2015
Shao-Ting Alan Hung*

Department of English, National Kaohsiung First University of Science and Technology,
Kaohsiung, Taiwan
Washback refers to both positive and negative inuences of testing on teaching

and learning. While washback studies abound in the literature, most of them deal
with high-stakes, standardized tests or large-scale entrance examinations. Scant
eorts have been made to uncover washback eects in alternative assessments.
This study implemented an e-portfolio project as an alternative assessment
technique in a language teacher preparation content course and explored the
positive and negative washback eects that e-portfolio assessments produced on
learning. Eighteen English as a Foreign Language (EFL) student teachers in a
graduate course of a Masters program in Teaching English to Speakers of Other
Languages participated in this assessment project. Data were collected through
multiple instruments, including interviews, observations, document analysis, and
reective journals. The ndings suggest that e-portfolio assessments generate
positive washback eects on learning, including building a community of practice,
facilitating peer learning, enhancing learning of content knowledge, promoting
professional development, and cultivating critical thinking. However, e-portfolio
assessments also bring some negative washback eects, such as learning anxiety
deriving from larger audiences, and resistance to technology. Finally, it is
concluded that EFL professionals make judicious use of e-portfolio assessments
to balance classroom assessments and to facilitate the learning of content
knowledge.
Keywords: e-portfolio; washback; classroom assessment; teacher education
Background
Washback refers to the eect of testing on teaching and learning (Hughes,
2003, p.1). More specically, it is generally known as the positive or negative
inuences tests have on teachers instruction and students learning. A number of
studies have explored washback eects that standardized exams have brought to
language learning and teaching. For instance, Watanabe (1996) examined the
eect of the university entrance examination on the use of the grammartranslation method in Japan and found that the entrance examination failed to
play any signicant role in the choice of teaching methodology. Rather, it was
teacher factors that dictated how the course would be taught. Cheng, Klinger &
Zheng (2007) also conducted a washback study to investigate the impact of a
*Email: alanhung123@gmail.com
ISSN 0958-8221 print/ISSN 1744-3210 online
2012 Taylor & Francis
http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/09588221.2010.551756
http://www.tandfonline.com
22
S.-T.A. Hung
large-scale literacy test on second language (L2) students in Canada. The results
indicated that the reading test formats, text types, skills, strategies, and writing
tasks impacted L2 and L1 learners dierently and signicantly. Finally, Alderson
and Hamp-Lyons (1996) discovered that the Test of English as a Foreign
Language (TOEFL) aected language teachers on the content of instruction and
teaching strategies. In sum, a number of washback studies have been conducted
to investigate the inuences of testing on teachers, teaching, and textbooks
(Cheng, 2005; Read & Hayes, 2003; Qi, 2005).
However, these washback studies all targeted large-scale, standardized tests, such
as entrance exams and prociency tests; none of them probed the washback of smallscale, classroom-based, alternative assessments, such as portfolio assessments.
Cheng and Curtis (2004) described the current trends in assessment as experiencing a
primary paradigm shift from standardized testing to alternative assessment as a
useful means to evaluate students abilities in accomplishing specic language tasks.
With this being the case, the study attempted to bridge the gap by exploring whether
washback eects exist for such assessment practices.
E-portfolios in teacher training programs
Portfolios refer to a purposeful collection of students work that documents their
progress over time (Hancock, 1994; OMalley & Valdez Pierce, 1996). The artifacts
in the portfolios range from writing samples, reading logs, reections, and peers
comments to teachers feedback. Portfolios provide an opportunity for learners to
monitor their own progress and take responsibility for meeting goals. In recent years,
with the advent of technology in language teaching and learning, portfolios have
moved from manila folders to an online environment to make distributing student
work relatively easy. That is to say, electronic portfolios (e-portfolios) are more
readily available and more portable than paper-based portfolios. According to
Barrett (2000), an e-portfolio incorporates electronic technologies that help the
portfolio developers to collect and organize artifacts in a variety of formats.
Furthermore, it is argued that the multimedia possibilities in the e-portfolio systems
make student work seem more sophisticated, so students see their learning as more
important and take greater pride in it (Pullman, 2002). Specically, when students
are engaged in the processes of deciding on the portfolios purposes, analyzing the
audience, as well as examining and selecting artifacts to be included, they are usually
involved in metacognitive goal setting and reective self-assessment practices.
E-portfolios have been widely used in teacher training programs to help teachers
collect and organize artifacts and demonstrate professional growth. As dened by
MacDonald, Liu, Lowell, Tsai, and Lohr (2004, p. 1), electronic portfolios serve as
multimedia environments that display artifacts and reections documenting
professional growth and competencies. Similarly, they are also shown to encourage
personal self-reection and facilitate pedagogical knowledge and teaching practice
(Darling-Hammond & Snyder, 2000; Sung, Chang, Yu, & Chang, 2009). Moreover,
a number of benets of e-portfolios for learning have been proposed. For example,
e-portfolios oer opportunities to assess both the writing process and the product, as
well as opportunities for reection, revision, and collaboration (Pullman, 2002).
Furthermore, since an electronic portfolio expands writing to include creative work
in sound, images, and hypertexts, it presents the possibility of a new literacy,
e-literacy (Hawisher & Selfe, 1997).
23
Several eorts have been made to research how e-portfolios work as a learning tool
in teacher training programs. MacDonald et al. (2004) carried out a case study,
investigating graduate-level preservice teachers perspectives on the development of
electronic portfolios. The ndings suggest that the most commonly reported discovery
was that the sharing and peer review portion of the class led to the most learning. In
other words, seeing other peoples work was noted as a continuous process for revision,
reselection of artifacts, and interface design. Briey put, participants went through a
great deal of reection and spent much time in redesign and reselection of portfolio
entries. Yang (2009) investigated the use of blogs as a reective platform in the English
as a Foreign Language (EFL) student teachers training program. The results indicated
that student teachers were active in discussing language teaching theories and how these
theories can be used in real classrooms. Student teachers also critically reected on their
learning and made valuable comments. Next, Sung et al. (2009) uncovered the
eectiveness of digital teaching portfolios in an in-service teacher training program. The
results showed that most teachers demonstrated moderate levels of reection, but only
one-third of them showed the highest level of reection. They also found that eportfolios with self-assessment, peer assessment, discussion, and journal writing might
enhance the professional growth of teachers. Finally, van Olphens (2007) study
focused on language teacher candidates views on developing digital portfolios and
concluded that digital portfolios could document evidence of students progress and
oer an opportunity for reective thinking. In summary, these studies used e-portfolios
as learning tools to enhance teachers professional development. However, using
e-portfolios as an assessment tool still remained under-explored.
Using portfolios as an assessment tool
Hirvela and Pierson (2000) note that to improve the eld of assessment, educators
and researchers should search for ways to measure student achievement and seek a
model of assessment that would build on students strengths rather than highlight
their weaknesses. Thus, portfolio assessment has become an appropriate form of
evaluation (Camp & Levine, 1991). Today, portfolios are at the center of many
discussions on classroom pedagogy and assessment. As Hancock (1994, p. 3) posits,
portfolio assessment is an ongoing process involving the student and teacher in
selecting samples of student work for inclusion in a collection. Hence, it became
central to involve students in decisions about which pieces of their work to assess.
Portfolio-based assessment, by nature, stands for an alternative approach to
language assessment. Specically, it combines learning and assessment. According to
Hirvela and Pierson (2000), portfolio assessment enlarges and reshapes the whole
notion of what language assessment can and should do (p. 107). Murphy (1994)
also pinpoints that portfolios provide us with the opportunities to make assessment
process a learning process, something very dierent from the conventional
assessment scenarios. Hence, portfolio is perceived both as a learning tool and as
an assessment tool (Ok & Erdogan, 2010). On one hand, it functions as a learning
tool since it oers feedback for students about their growth and teachers about
their classroom practices. On the other hand, it serves as an assessment tool
since it reects students performance and teachers self-monitoring on the
instruction. In summary, in the portfolio contexts, assessment and learning are
interwoven to bring more holistic insights into students and teachers
professional development.
24
S.-T.A. Hung
Blogs as e-portfolios
Because of the increasing interest in Web 2.0 technologies, blogs have experienced
phenomenal growth in recent years (Churchill, 2009; Godwin-Jones, 2006, 2008).
Serving as one type of e-portfolios, blogs enable users to interact with and have their
work viewed by others inside and outside the classroom (Richardson, 2006) and to
move from being observers to participants. In other words, participatory practice is
greatly emphasized in public blog domains, also called the blogosphere (Bloch,
2007). Moreover, Godwin-Jones (2003) asserts that language learners could use a
personal blog as an electronic portfolio to show development over time. Learners are
given a chance to write for audiences beyond classmates, which encourages them to
be more thoughtful and responsible for what they write. Finally, the archiving of
blog entries enhances learners reection and cultivates metacognitive strategies for
monitoring the learning process (Richardson, 2006).
Purpose of the study
Although eorts have been made to research e-portfolio assessment in teacher
training programs, few empirical studies have been conducted in EFL teacher
training contexts (Yang, 2009). Furthermore, most washback studies have addressed
high stakes, standardized tests, or entrance examinations; there is little exploration
of washback eects of classroom-based, alternative assessment, e-portfolio assessment, in particular, on EFL student teachers professional development. Therefore,
this study set out to probe the washback eects of e-portfolio assessment on
prospective EFL teachers learning of content knowledge.
Research questions
(1) Does the implementation of e-portfolio assessment produce any positive
washback on content learning?
(2) Does the implementation of e-portfolio assessment produce any negative
washback on content learning?
(3) What pedagogical implications can be drawn?
Method
The setting and participants
The e-portfolio assessment project was implemented in a graduate-level content course
in a national university located in the southern part of Taiwan. The content course,
Language Assessment, aimed to provide prospective EFL teachers with an overview,
theories, and practices of language assessment and to enhance their skills of developing
eective language tests and assessment instruments. The course met for one three-hour
session each week, for 18 weeks. The participants were 18 full-time rst-year graduate
students in a Masters program with a concentration on Teaching English to Speakers
of Other Languages (TESOL). Among them, ve were males and 13 were females. The
ages ranged from 24 to 35 years. All of the participants had formal or informal
experiences of teaching EFL to children, teenagers, or adults for 1 to 10 years.
25
The e-portfolio website

The e-portfolio website, Wretch, was chosen for the current study for three
reasons: (1) ease of use, (2) popularity, and (3) familiarity. First, Wretch is a
ready-made site that requires no high-tech skills and allows users to upload
artifacts in multiple formats, such as texts, graphics, sound, and video les. It is
also equipped with functions not merely for users to organize and categorize their
entries based on various themes and topics but also for visitors to post
individualized feedback as a medium for asynchronous communication with users.
Second, Wretch is a well-known blog site among Taiwanese students. According
to statistics by Alexa Internet, Inc., a subsidiary company of Amazon.com known
for its browsing behavior analyses and web trac reporting, Wretch is ranked the
second most visited website among the top 100 sites in Taiwan. Lastly, most of
participants in the current study had created their own e-portfolios on Wretch in
other classes or in their leisure time. Hence, these three reasons supported
the selection of Wretch as a platform for participants to maintain their
e-portfolios.
Implementation
Table 1 describes the detailed procedures of the e-portfolio project.
Stage 1: project orientation and preparation
In the rst two weeks, the prospective EFL teachers set up their e-portfolios at
Wretch, available at www.wretch.cc. At this stage, participants also learned the
fundamental concepts of e-portfolio assessment, including purposes, outcomes,
processes, students and teachers roles, among others. Moreover, to allow for
ecient peer feedback, they also formed groups of two to three persons.
Stage 2: implementation
At the second stage, spanning from the third week to the end of the semester,
participants worked on their required assignments. The participants were required to
complete six types of assignments, which are explained as follows:
Table 1.
Procedures for implementing e-portfolio assessment project.
Stage
I. Project orientation and preparation
(1st to 2nd week)
II. Implementation (3rd to 18th week)
Task
Setting up e-portfolios at www.wretch.cc
Learning concepts of e-portfolio assessment
Forming portfolio groups of 23 persons for
peer commenting
Working on the assignments
Giving peer feedback for each assignment
Teacher commenting on the participants
entries
Revising the assignments according to the
comments
26
S.-T.A. Hung
(1) Annotated journal articles: Students read either assigned or self-chosen
journal articles related to the course content, Language Assessment,
summarized the articles, reected on the issues, and proposed classroom
implications in written forms.
(2) Critical responses: The instructor occasionally posed some pedagogical scenarios
for discussion. For instance, one scenario was The teacher feels that his students
revise what they write only minimally, and he is eager that they learn the value of
revision. How can be use portfolios to achieve this? The participants responded
to the scenarios and commented on each others responses.
(3) Group assessment project: Students worked with their group members and
constructed an assessment project on specied skills, such as listening,
speaking, reading, and writing. They applied theories they learned from class
into the projects. The nal project consisted of a rationale, target test-takers,
test specications, test items, and grading criteria.
(4) Conference notes: Students attended two assessment-related paper presentations at a conference and wrote one-page conference notes on arguments and
ndings of presentations.
(5) Self- and peer-assessment questionnaire: After each annotated journal article
was completed, participants lled out an open-ended self- and peerassessment questionnaire, analyzing their own and peers strengths, weaknesses, and areas for future improvement. (See Appendix 1 for self- and peerassessment questionnaire.)
(6) Reective journal: At the end of the semester, each student wrote a reective
journal, discussing what they learned in this content course. (See Appendix 2
for a description of the reective journal assignment.)
In addition to completing each assignment, participants were required to give peer

feedback on their group members assignments. Then, each participant responded to
the feedback or revised the assignments according to the teachers and peers feedback.
After revising each required assignment, they posted their revised assignments onto
their e-portfolios and named them as revised work to allow for comparison.
In terms of assessment, student teachers e-portfolios were constantly reviewed
by both peers and the instructor during the semester and rated at the end of the
semester. Announced to all the pre-service teachers at the beginning of the semester,
the criteria Included: (1) content of each assignment, (2) contribution of peer
feedback, (3) fullment of requirements and (4) timely submission. The grades on eportfolios accounted for 50% of participants total scores.
Instruments
The current study collected data via interviews, observations, and document
analysis. First, interviewing is an eective means of eliciting information when the
researcher cannot observe participants behavior and other visible cues as to their
feelings or how they interpret the world around them. It is also important to collect
data through interviews when the researchers are interested in past events and
experiences that are impossible to replicate (Merriam, 1998). Therefore, aiming to
investigate washback eects of e-portfolio assessment on EFL student teachers
learning of content knowledge, the researcher and research assistants conducted
three 30-minute semi-structured interviews with each of the students (see Appendix 3
27
for detailed interview questions). Second, participant observations also allowed the
researcher to learn rsthand how the actions of the participants corresponded to
their words and to observe patterns of behavior. Third, document analysis was
performed because documents corroborate the interviews and thus make the
ndings more trustworthy. Beyond corroboration, they may raise questions about
the researchers hunches and thereby shape new directions for interviews (Glesne,
1999, p. 58). In the current study, the documents in students e-portfolios included
required assignments (i.e., annotated journal articles, critical responses, self- and
peer-assessment questionnaire, conference notes, assessment project, and reective
journal), self-chosen entries, peers responses, and teachers feedback.
Data analysis
The data analysis procedure followed a series of steps in an eort to generate themes
capable of providing triangulation information. First, all the qualitative data were
reviewed by the researcher and another qualied researcher who holds a doctorate in
TESOL. This peer debrieng process served to establish the credibility of the
interpretation of the data. While reviewing the data, a number of codes were
generated. Second, the researchers re-read the entire data set closely and labelled all
the data with the generated codes. Next, they carefully reviewed the codes and as
such combined the relevant ones into seven themes that represented positive and
negative washback eects. The detailed coding scheme that includes themes, codes
and examples is presented in Table 2.
Findings and discussion
Synthesizing all the data sources, the study uncovered a number of washback eects
of e-portfolio assessment on EFL student teachers learning of content knowledge.
Figure 1 presents all of the positive and negative washback eects derived from the
current study.
Positive washback
According to Pearson (1988), assessments washback eects will be positive if they
are benecial and encourage desired changes on teaching, learning, and curriculum.
Similarly, Cheng and Curtis (2004) argue that positive washback eects will be
generated when teachers and learners have a positive attitude toward the
assessment and work willingly and collaboratively toward assessment and learning
objectives. In the present study, a number of positive washback eects from e-portfolio
assessment were discovered, such as building a community of practice, facilitating peer
learning, enhancing learning of content knowledge, promoting professional development, and cultivating critical thinking. Corresponding to what Cheng and Curtis
(2004) posited, these eects increased learners willingness to collaborate with peers
and provoked desired changes in learning content knowledge.
Building a community of practice
E-portfolios built a small community in which these language teachers could interact
through reading each others entries, discussing ideas, commenting on issues, and
28
S.-T.A. Hung
Table 2.
Coding scheme.
Themes
Positive washback
Building community
of practice
Codes
Learning environment/
space
Constant engagement
Facilitating peer learning
Peer interaction
Peer feedback
Collaborative learning
Enhancing learning of
content knowledge
Development of
knowledge on
language assessment
Documentation of
learning process
Promoting professional
development
Theories into practices

Linkage to classroom
practices
Cultivating critical
thinking
Reective thinking
Thinking from dierent
perspectives
Negative washback
Anxiety
Frustration with
technology
Audience outside of the class

Worries about writing
entries online
Technical problems
Examples
E-portfolio is just like a learning
space for us to get to know
more about this subject. Every
week we share information
about class readings,
assignments, and projects.
I think e-portfolio is one of the
useful tools for me to learn
from others. I could read
other students assignments. I
could learn from their ideas
and their writing styles.
This approach (portfolio)
helped me review my learning
process on language
assessment. It can show what
students have learned about
the subject.
When I am teaching, I can
always connect theories with
teaching practices and try to
nd some ideas from those
documents.
I usually reected on the ideas
in my postings and thought
about what questions my
classmates would ask and
how to answer their
questions.
I dont like other people to read
my postings because I think
my English is poor.
I feel frustrated when there are
some troubles on the Internet
because I dont know how to
solve the problems.
exchanging information. This e-portfolio-based community not only enhanced

peer interaction through peer feedback but also exposed learners to dierent
perspectives. These 18 language teachers reported that e-portfolios created a virtual
classroom for them to discuss language teaching and assessment theories, review and
comment on peers assignments and thus take responsibility for their professional
development through constant engagement. The following excerpts from the
interview and reective journal illustrate learners perceptions of the e-portfolio
community:
E-portfolios created a learning space for the class members. In addition to classroom
learning, we were given one more opportunity to exchange information and discuss
pedagogical issues.
Figure 1.
29
Washback of e-portfolio assessment.
E-portfolios were like a place where we could view others entries to get some dierent
viewpoints on the same topics and learn from dierent perspectives. Sometimes when I
view other peers entries, and then I tell myself wow, why didnt I think of this idea?
It is clear that this community serves as an open space for language teachers to
explore and describe their ideas. Similarly, it allows language teachers to
experiment with content knowledge and express themselves in a relaxed
environment. Therefore, as indicated by Wenger (1998), the community
encourages these language teachers to take responsibility for information sharing
and problem solving, to develop their personal identities in the community, and
to foster unication of the community.
Facilitating peer learning
In the current study, a number of participants revealed that unlike other standardized
testing where they were not allowed to discuss and collaborate with peers, portfolio
assessment permitted them to use peers as resources to facilitate learning. Peer
feedback on participants entries was highly regarded and thus encouraged them to
improve the quality of their work. The following excerpts from student interviews
show participants reactions to peer learning in e-portfolio assessment:
I think e-portfolio is one of the useful tools for me to learn from others. I could read
other students assignments. I could learn from their ideas and their writing styles so
that I can improve my assignments.
In this portfolio approach, I beneted a lot from others feedback. For instance, I found
several constructive suggestions on my annotated journal articles from classmates. So,
when I give feedback, I also need to be more responsible and serious, not just
commenting on others assignments carelessly.
30
S.-T.A. Hung
Since e-portfolios empowered participants to give and receive more immediate

feedback from peers to resolve professional issues, they enabled collaborative
learning among peers to take place.
Enhancing learning of content knowledge
The ndings also revealed that e-portfolios do not merely enhance peer interaction as
mentioned above, but they also enhance participants learning of content knowledge.
In this graduate course, Language Assessment, participants were introduced to types
of language assessments, principles of constructing language tests, and theories and
practices of large-scaled and classroom-based assessments. After the systematic
collection of assignments in the portfolios, these EFL student teachers found it easier
to document their development of content knowledge. The following quotes were
extracted from reective journal, self- and peer-assessment questionnaires and
student interviews:
I know more about the content knowledge after a semester of constructing e-portfolio.
When I write entries in my portfolio, I have to review the principles of language
assessment mentioned in class and in the textbook. I think my e-portfolio documents my
learning progress in this content course.
Because e-portfolio documents all my entries, it helps me review what I have learned in
this class.
I think my e-portfolio helped me organize my learning in this content course. For
example, in my e-portfolio, I included the summaries and reections of some journal
articles under the topic of self-assessment. Every time when I write my assignment, I can
easily review my previous work and the feedback from peers and instructor.
Therefore, it is evident that with the benet of documentation the e-portfolio

assessment project trained the prospective teachers to organize their content
learning systematically and thus encouraged them to be reective learners.
Promoting professional development
In addition to content knowledge, e-portfolios also provided EFL teachers with a
chance to link theories to their classroom practices. A number of them reported that
since they had collected the learning products in their portfolios, they were able to
refer to them when teaching and assessing their students. In other words, the
construction process of e-portfolios strengthened EFL teachers professional
knowledge and development, which can also be found in other assessment
techniques such as collaborative projects and reective journals but are hardly
found in one-shot, decontextualized tests. The following excerpts from reective
journals illustrate the participants professional development in e-portfolio
assessment:
During the learning, I can see my improvement by looking at those documents that I
collected. When I am teaching, I can always connect theories with teaching practices and
try to nd some ideas from those documents.
With all the entries in my portfolio, it became easier to review principles and theories of
language assessment, like reliability and validity. When I design tests for my English
classes, I can go back to my portfolio and improve the tests.
31
Acting as a platform, e-portfolios paved a way for professional development,

enabling prospective language teachers to translate knowledge into practice and
heighten the level of pedagogical reection. As noted by Sung et al. (2009), when
teachers observe, review, and discuss the content of portfolios, they learn to clarify
their previous conceptions about their own practices and think deeper on the merits
and drawbacks of their own work.
Moreover, some of these teacher trainees projected their future use of e-portfolios in
their EFL classrooms. For instance, one noted that she would use e-portfolios in her
childrens English classes to help pupils collect their learning products such as English
journal entries and self-created glossaries. Another described his future plan of using eportfolios as an assessment tool in a college writing class, saying that he would rate
each of his students writing samples as a formative assessment and grade the entire eportfolio at the end of semester as a summative assessment. Hence, it became clear that
some teacher trainees were already planning and evaluating how e-portfolios could be
integrated in their future classes.
Cultivating critical thinking
Unlike conventional paper-and-pencil tests that emphasize rote memorization and
attainment of discrete skills, e-portfolio assessment cultivates language teachers
critical thinking ability. When giving feedback, they tended to approach the issues
from more than one perspective. Meanwhile, when responding to peer feedback on
classroom practices, they did not merely link practices to theories but also discussed
foreseeable challenges and raised pedagogical implications. The following excerpts
from interviews and self- and peer-assessment questionnaires explain how e-portfolio
assessment cultivated their critical thinking skills:
Using e-portfolios to evaluate our learning is very dierent from using tests. E-portfolio
assessment encouraged me to think deeper on some learning issues and challenge both
my own and peers perspectives.
In this type of assessment, I usually re-evaluate my assignments in other peoples eyes. I
ask myself some questions and try to answer them from dierent angles.
Negative washback
In the traditional testing context, negative washback eects refer to the undesirable
eects on teaching and learning, such as overemphasis on memorization, practicing
exam techniques rather than language learning tasks, unnecessary test anxiety, and
failure to promote general understanding (Alderson & Wall, 1993; Cheng & Curtis,
2004). On the other hand, in alternative assessments context, particularly e-portfolio
assessment in the current study, negative washback was explored and described as
follows.
Anxiety
While e-portfolio assessment produced positive washback, it also generated some
negative impacts on learning. The rst negative washback was anxiety derived from
the presence of the audience. Since e-portfolios created on Wretch are public domain,
32
S.-T.A. Hung
they were visited by not only class participants but also unknown users beyond the
classroom. These language teachers were somewhat concerned about their written
performance being observed by people other than the class instructor. Hence,
although giving and receiving feedback could enhance interaction and promote
critical thinking, it provoked learning anxiety. The following excerpts from
interviews illustrated language teachers increased anxiety:
I know my classmates will always read my postings. I am a little bit worried about the
quality of my assignments and the feedback I give to others. I sometimes keep quiet not
because I dont have any ideas but because I dont want all of the members to read my
postings.
I became anxious every time when I post my entries because I dont know how my
classmates will look at them and how they will evaluate them.
In the traditional tests, learners performance is judged only by the teachers; however,
in e-portfolio assessment, their performance is observed and evaluated by larger
populations. When the audience increases, anxiety also increases. In Wards (2004)
blog-writing study, students reported that they felt that they had to write really good
topics because everyone would read their works. Worried about a similar issue, the preservice teachers in the present study experienced a certain level of apprehension.
Fustration with technology
Another negative washback pertained to fustration. Stemming from the technical
challenges they encountered while maintaining their e-portfolios, pre-service teachers
fustration seemed to lead to resistance against technology. Although they were familiar
with the e-portfolio system, some occasionally encountered technical problems, such as
instability of the Internet, uploading failure and system maintenance. For some learners,
these problems seemed to provoke some resistance against technology, which in turn
reduced their learning motivation and interest in using e-portfolios in their future
learning. A few participants indicated their resistance to technology in the interviews:
Sometimes I cant post my feedback on others entries. I tried several times but still
failed. I had to wait until the next day to dispatch my messages. Its inconvenient.
The e-portfolio system sometimes cant display the full text of my assignments properly.
It cut out words to the right of every line. I had to do the formatting again and again or
spend a lot of time adjusting the formats.
Compared with paper-based assignments, online assignments created more troubles. If
the system is down, my assignments cant be posted on time.
Corresponding to van Olphens (2007) argument that technology was not infallible,
the current study found that although technology played an important role in the
portfolio development process, it could create some frustration for some student
teachers. Hence, solving technical diculties would need to be addressed before eportfolio assessment could become eective in a language teacher education program.
Pedagogical implications
Based on the ndings, two pedagogical implications are proposed to maximize the
ecacy of e-portfolio assessment. First, with all the positive washback eects,
33
e-portfolio assessment is recommended to supplement conventional paper-and-pencil

testing in language teacher preparation courses. Since traditional testing solely
evaluates the learning outcome and neglects the process of professional development,
employing e-portfolio assessment that encompasses various entries of language
teachers growth may lead to a more balanced assessment approach that places equal
weight on the process and product of professional development.
Second, the negative washback on anxiety from larger audiences may derive from
participants discomfort of revealing personal competence on the Internet. In other
words, these EFL student teachers were worried that their entries might fail to meet
peers expectations or their postings may jeopardize their friendship. Hence, to tackle
their concern about overt performance, guidance should be designed to sustain
collaboration and socialization throughout the course. Alternatively, helping these
student teachers realize peers as learning resources rather than judges becomes
crucial.
Conclusion and limitations
As washback research continues to grow, a number of eorts have investigated how
large-scale standardized tests impact EFL students learning. What seems to be
lacking pertains to washback eects of classroom-based alternative assessment on
learning. The present study bridged the gap by examining if and what washback
existed in one particular form of alternative assessments e-portfolio assessment in
a language teacher preparation program. The ndings suggest that e-portfolio
assessment produces some positive washback eects on learning, such as building a
community of practice, facilitating peer learning, enhancing learning of content
knowledge, promoting professional development, and cultivating critical thinking.
Conversely, e-portfolio assessment also brought some negative washback eects on
learning, such as anxiety from larger audiences and resistance to technology. Based
on the ndings, TESOL educators are suggested to make judicious use of eportfolio assessment to balance classroom assessment and foster socialization of
online collaboration.
One of the limitations of the study lies in the small number of participants
(N 18). Exploring washback eects of e-portfolio assessment on EFL student
teachers learning, the present study focused on a purposeful sample of
one graduate-level class of 18 participants. Although the ndings revealed
contextualized meaning in a specic context, they could not necessarily be
generalized to all EFL teachers who have experiences with e-portfolio assessment.
Larger sample sizes are needed for future investigation. Another limitation
pertains to the compulsory nature of the project. Every EFL student teacher was
required to construct his e-portfolio and upload assigned entries in order to fulll
the requirements of the course. The ndings may be dierent if the project
becomes voluntary since Sung et al. (2009) state that the eects of using eportfolios on a voluntary basis will elicit more information on the feasibility and
suitability of using e-portfolios to increase teachers interaction in a learning
community.
Acknowledgement
My appreciation goes to anonymous reviewers for their comments and suggestions. The project
was sponsored by National Science Council, Taiwan (Project no. NSC 97-2410-H-327-029).
34
S.-T.A. Hung
Notes on contributor
Dr. Shao-Ting Alan Hung is an assistant professor in the Department of English and coordinator of the Foreign Language Program at National Kaohsiung First University of
Science and Technology, Taiwan. His research interests include CALL, L2 writing pedagogy
and language assessment.
References
Alexa Internet, & Inc. (2010). Top sites in Taiwan. Retrieved February 2, 2010, from http://
www.alexa.com/topsites/countries/TW/
Alderson, J.C., & Hamp-Lyons, L. (1996). TOEFL preparation courses: A case study.
Language Testing, 13, 280297.
Alderson, J., & Wall, D. (1993). Does washback exist? Applied Linguistics, 14, 115129.
Barrett, H. (2000). Create your own electronic portfolio. Learning and Leading with
Technology, 27(7), 1421.
Bloch, J. (2007). Abdullahs blogging: A generation 1.5 student enters the blogosphere.
Language Learning & Technology, 11(2), 128141.
Camp, R., & Levine, D.S. (1991). Portfolios evolving. In P. Belano & M. Dickson (Eds.),
Portfolios: Process and product (pp. 194205). Portsmouth, NH: Boynton/Cook.
Cheng, L. (2005). Changing language teaching through language testing: A washback study.
Studies in Language Testing 21. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Cheng, L., & Curtis, A. (2004). Washback or backwash: A review of the impact of testing on
teaching and learning. In L. Cheng, Y. Watanabe, & A. Curtis (Eds.), Washback in language
testing: Research contexts and methods (pp. 318). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum
Associates.
Cheng, L., Klinger, D., & Zheng, Y. (2007). The challenges of the Ontario Secondary School
Literacy Test for second language students. Language Testing, 24, 185208.
Churchill, D. (2009). Educational applications of Web 2.0: Using blogs to support teaching
and learning. British Journal of Educational Technology, 40(1), 179183.
Darling-Hammond, L., & Snyder, J. (2000). Authentic assessment of teaching in context.
Teaching and Teacher Education, 16, 523545.
Glesne, C. (1999). Becoming qualitative researchers. New York: Longman.
Godwin-Jones, R. (2003). Emerging technologies. Blogs and wikis: Environments for on-line
collaboration. Language Learning & Technology, 17(2), 1216.
Godwin-Jones, R. (2006). Emerging technologies. Tag clouds in the blogosphere: Electronic
literacy and social networking. Language Learning & Technology, 10(2), 815.
Godwin-Jones, R. (2008). Emerging technologies. Web-writing 2.0: Enabling, documenting,
and assessing writing online. Language Learning & Technology, 12(2), 713.
Hancock, C.R. (1994). Alternative assessment and second language study: What and why?
Eric Digest, ED376695.
Hawisher, G.E., & Selfe, C.L. (1997). Wedding the technologies of writing portfolios and
computers: The challenges of the electronic classrooms. In K.B. Yancey & I. Weiser
(Eds.), Situating portfolios: For perspectives (p. 305). Utah State: UP.
Hirvela, A., & Pierson, H. (2000). Portfolios: Vehicles for authentic self-assessment. In G.
Ekbatani & H. Pierson (Eds.), Learner-directed assessment in ESL. Mahwah, NJ:
Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Hughes, A. (2003). Testing for language teachers. New York: Cambridge University Press.
MacDonald, L., Liu, P., Lowell, K., Tsai, H., & Lohr, L. (2004). Graduate student
perspectives on the development of electronic portfolios. TechTrends, 48(3), 5255.
Murphy, A. (1994). Writing portfolios in K-12 schools: Implications for linguistically diverse
students. In L. Black, D.A. Daiker, J. Sommers, & G. Stygall (Eds.), New directions in
portfolio assessment (pp. 140156). Portsmouth, NH: Boynton/Cook.
OMalley, M.J., & Valdes Pierce, L. (1996). Authentic assessment for English language learners:
Practical approaches for teachers. White Plains, NY: Addison-Wesley.
Ok, A., & Erdogan, M. (2010). Prospective teachers perceptions on dierent aspects of
portfolio. Asia Pacic Education Review, 11, 301310.
Pearson, I. (1988). Tests as levers for change. In D. Chamberlain & R.J. Baumgardner (Eds.),
ESP in the classroom: Practice and evaluation (pp. 98107). London: Modern English.
35
Pullman, G. (2002). Electronic portfolios revisited: The efolios project. Computers and
Composition, 19, 151169.
Qi, L. (2005). Stakeholders conicting aims undermine the washback function of a highstakes test. Language Testing, 22, 142173.
Read, J., & Hayes, B. (2003). The impact of IELTS on preparation for academic study in New
Zealand. In R. Tulloh (Ed.), International English language testing system research reports,
4. Canberra, Australia: ITLTS.
Richardson, W. (2006). Blogs, wikis, podcasts, and other powerful Web tools for classrooms.
Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press.
Sung, Y., Chang, K., Yu, W., & Chang, T. (2009). Supporting teachers reection and learning
through structured digital teaching portfolios. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 25, 375
385.
van Olphen, M. (2007). Digital portfolios: Balancing the academic and professional needs of
world language teacher candidates. In M. Kassen, R. Lavine, K. Murphy-Judy, & M.
Peter (Eds.), Preparing and developing technolgy-procient L2 teachers (pp. 265294). San
Marcos, TX: CALICO.
Ward, J.M. (2004). Blogging assisted language learning (BALL): Push button publishing for
the pupils. TEFL Web Journal, 3(1), 116.
Watanabe, Y. (1996). Does grammar translation come from the entrance examination?
Preliminary ndings from classroom-based research. Language Testing, 13, 318333.
Wenger, E. (1998). Communities of practice: Learning, meaning, and identity. New York, NY:
Cambridge University Press.
Yang, S.H. (2009). Using blogs to enhance critical reection and community of practice.
Educational Technology & Society, 12(2), 1121.
Appendix 1. Self- and peer-assessment form (for the required assignments)

Name:
Peer:
Self assessment
1. What are your strengths in this assignment? Please critically analyze your strengths by
presenting specic examples.
My strengths:
2. What are your weaknesses in this assignment? Please critically analyze your weaknesses by
presenting specic examples.
My weaknesses:
3. How would you make the assignment better? Discuss some suggestions.
Peer assessment
Peers name:
4. Carefully read your peers assignment and point out the strengths and weaknesses. What
improvement can be made?
5. Other comments?
36
S.-T.A. Hung
Appendix 2. Reective journal

Please write a two-paged double-spaced reective journal to reect on your overall e-portfolio
experiences. Some guiding questions are suggested but not required, such as (1) What have
you learned from constructing your portfolio? (2) Which parts of your portfolio did you enjoy
doing the most? (3) Which parts didnt you like to do? (4) Do you think constructing the
portfolio helped you? If it did, in what ways? (5) What were the disadvantages? (6) What
diculties did you encounter?, and (7) Do you like this kind of assessment as compared to
paper-and-pencil tests?
Appendix 3. Sample interview questions

Sample questions for the rst interview (warm-up)
(1)
(2)
(3)
(4)
(5)
What is your motivation in taking this content course?

What are your goals in this content course?
How do you improve your learning in content course?
Do you use any strategy to help you learn content knowledge?
What can you do to improve your content learning?
Sample questions for the second interview

(1) What do you like about creating your portfolio? Why?
(2) What do you dislike about creating your portfolio?
(3) Do you think if portfolio can document your learning progress in content course? If it
can, in what ways?
(4) What do you think about the feedback from your classmates? Are they helpful? Why/
why not?
(5) Do you think if portfolios improve peer interaction?
(6) Do you prefer being assessed by portfolio or traditional paper-and-pencil tests? Or
both? Why?
(7) Do you want to see the use of portfolios in your future content course?
(8) Do you think your portfolio help organize your content learning?
Sample questions for the third interview

(1) In your experience, what are some advantages of using the Internet to present your
portfolio?
(2) In your experience, what are some drawbacks of using the Internet to present your
portfolio?
(3) What are some challenges you encountered during this project?
(4) Do you often view the artifacts in your portfolio? Can you identify what you can do to
improve your portfolio development?
(5) What suggestions can you give to enhance Web-based portfolio assessment?

A Washback Study On E-Portfolio Assessment in An

Transféré par

Informations du document

Titre original

Copyright

Formats disponibles

Partager ce document

Partager ou intégrer le document

Options de partage

Avez-vous trouvé ce document utile ?

Ce contenu est-il inapproprié ?

Droits d'auteur :

Formats disponibles

A Washback Study On E-Portfolio Assessment in An

Transféré par

Droits d'auteur :

Formats disponibles

Computer Assisted Language Learning

ISSN: 0958-8221 (Print) 1744-3210 (Online) Journal homepage: http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/ncal20