Effect of Portfolio Assessment on Fostering Iranian EFL Students` Empowerment: University Entrance Exam in Focus

Subject Areas : All areas of language and translation

Mahbubeh Mahmoodi-Nasrabadi ¹ (English Department, Najafabad Branch, Islamic Azad University, Najafabad, Iran)
Omid Tabatabaei ² (English Department, Najafabad Branch, Islamic Azad University, Najafabad, Iran)
Hadi Salehi ³ (English Department, Najafabad Branch, Islamic Azad University, Najafabad, Iran)
Mahmud Mehrabi ⁴ (English Department, Najafabad Branch, Islamic Azad University, Najafabad, Iran)

Received: 2022-08-14 Accepted : 2022-10-18 Published : 2024-01-01

Keywords: portfolio assessment, Assessment, empowerment, Disempowerment, University Entrance Exams (UEE),

Abstract :

Passing University Entrance Exams (UEE) successfully has long been the main anxiety for Iranian high school students. The reason for this mixed-methods ponder was to look at how freshman TEFL students experienced portfolio assessment for fostering their empowerment and also how assessment (dis)empowerment manifests itself in the English section of university Entrance Exams. The members were 100 freshmen university TEFL students who were helpfully and deliberately chosen from Shiraz, Tehran, and Isfahan universities. Not only a valid questionnaire but also group interviews were used to gather the required information. To analyze and portray the data, the researchers used descriptive statistical methods. The findings revealed TEFL pupils regarded the portfolio program as valuable for fostering their empowerment. Moreover, the TEFL students had an agreement about the disempowerment of the English section of the University Entrance Exam. Besides, the result underscored the need for more executive modes of evaluation consisting of using portfolios in UEE. Regarding the results, there are valuable suggestions for policymakers as well as constructors of the high-stake test.

References:

Altamimi, K. (2006). Dynamic Assessment of listening comprehension in second language learning (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). The Pennsylvania State University, University Park, University Park.
Ableeva, R., & Lantolf, J. (2011). Mediated dialogue and the micro genesis of second language listening comprehension. Assessment in Education: Principles, Policy & Practice, 18, 133-149.
Allal, L., &Pelgrims Ducrey, G. (2000). Assessment "of"- or "in"- the zone of proximal development. Learning and Instruction, 10, 137-152.
Bell, P. (2001). Representation and ways of knowing: Three issues in second language acquisition. In N. Ellis (Ed.), Explicit and implicit learning of languages (pp. 549–569). London: Academic Press.
Cho, L. and Krashen, S. (1994). The Significance of Learners’ Errors. International Review of Applied Linguistics, 5 (2), 161–169.
Constantino, B. (1994). The differential role of comprehension and production practice. Language Learning, 51 (3), 81–112.
Day, J. and Bamford, T. (1998). Does form-focused instruction affect the acquisition of implicit knowledge? A review of the research. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 24 (3), 223–236.
Dörnyei, Z. (2001). The motivational basis of language learning tasks. In P. Robinson (Ed.), Individual differences and instructed language learning (pp. 137-158). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Dörnyei, Z. (2005). The psychology of the language learner: Individual differences in second language acquisition. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Ellis, R. (2008). The Study of second language acquisition. New York: Oxford University Press.
Elly, F. and Mangubhai, S. (1983). Dynamic Assessment in Practice: Clinical and Educational Applications. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Grigorenko, E. L. & Sternberg, R. G. (2002). Dynamic testing: The nature and measurement of learning potential. New York: Cambridge University.
Hayashi, D. (1999). Interactive assessment: A special issue. The Journal of Special Education, 26 (3), 233-234.
Hedge, P. (1985). Teaching and learning in the language classroom. Oxford, England: Oxford University Press.
Isavi, L. (2012). The impacts of adding dynamic assessment components to a computerized preschool language screening test. Communication Disorders Quarterly, 22 (4), 217-226.
Kozulin, A., & Garb, E. (2002). Dynamic assessment of EFL text comprehension of at-risk students. School Psychology International, 23, 112-127.
Lantolf, J. P. (2000). Language competence: Implications for applied linguistics – A sociocultural perspective. Applied Linguistics, 27, 717-728.
Lantolf, J. P., & Poehner, M. E. (2004). Dynamic assessment of L2 develop-ment: bringing the past into the future. Journal of Applied Linguistics, 1 (2), 49-72.
Lidz, C. S., & Gindis, B. (2003). Dynamic assessment of the evolving cognitive functions in children. In A. E. Kozu-lin, J. S. Brown, S. M. Miller, C. Heath, B. Gindis, & V. S. Ageyev (Eds.), Vygotsky's educational theory in cultural context (pp. 99-116). Cambridge, UK, New York: Cambridge University Press.
Lantolf, J. P., & Poehner, M. E. (2008). Sociocultural theories and the teaching of second languages. London: Equinox.
Mardani, M and Tavakoli, T. (2011). What’s in a ZPD? A case study of a young ESL student and teacher interacting through dialogue journals. Language Teaching Research, 4 (2), 95-21.
Mason, F. and Krashen, S. (1997). Second Language Learning Theories. London: Hodder Arnold Press.
Robb, T. and Susser, K. (1989) The role of classroom assessment in teaching and learning. Los Angeles: University of California.
Salas, K. Gonzales, T. and Assael, B (2010). Foreign languages for younger children: Trends and assessment. Language Teaching & Linguistics: Abstracts, 10, 5-25.
Vygotsky, L. (1978). Mind in society: The development of higher psychological processes. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.
Teo, Y. (2012). A case study of dynamic assessment in EFL process writing. Chinese Journal of Applied Linguistics, 33(1), 24-40.
Zoghi, B. and Malmeer, J (2013). The impact of assessment on student learning: how can the research literature practically help to inform the development of departmental assessment strategies and learner-centered assessment practices? Active Learning in Higher Education, 3 (2), pp. 145-158.