Book announced at https://linguistlist.org/issues/35-2256

Title: Integrating e-Portfolios into L2 Classrooms
Subtitle: Education for Future
Series Title: New Perspectives on Language and Education
Publication Year: 2024

Publisher: Multilingual Matters
http://www.multilingual-matters.com/
Book URL: https://www.multilingual-matters.com/page/detail/?K=9781800415799

Author(s): Ricky Lam

Reviewer: Diana P. Pineda

SUMMARY

This book is useful for graduate students, language teachers and stakeholders because it broadens the knowledge and skills necessary to implement e-Portfolio in language learning classrooms. It offers epistemological foundations and research findings that include affective, linguistic and metacognitive characteristics of e-Portfolio assessment. Each of the nine chapters of the book includes an introduction, a set of four to seven topics conducive to developing the main topic of each chapter, and a summary. At the end, the author includes some appendixes and resources. In what follows, I present a summary of each chapter.

Chapter 1. In this chapter the author introduces the topic of the book, explaining how paper-based portfolios moved to e-Portfolios and how they have been used in education in general. Lam explains that the origin of portfolios dates from the 1980s in university classrooms. He presents the three types of portfolios: working, showcasing and assessment, as well as the four mediums of e-Portfolios: print versions uploaded in classroom platforms, open-source platforms like Moodle, web-based portfolios, and social media. He refers to accessibility, visibility and storage to explain the pros of using portfolios and computer literacy, the digital divide and privacy to illustrate the cons. The author describes the appropriate incorporation of e-Portfolios for writing development as they can help students affectively, linguistically and metacognitively.

Chapter 2. The chapter comprehends the review of the literature of the e-Portfolio, identifying three types of e-Portfolio related studies: professional, empirical and theoretical. The author introduces the transition from paper-based to electronic portfolios reported in two studies 10 years ago. The first is a review of the literature in multiple disciplines (Belgrad,2013), and the second (Butler, 2006), a presentation of the results of three action research studies carried out in the United States where paper-based and electronic portfolios were used. The author also presents comprehensive evidence-based research on the topic of e-Portfolios between 1996 and 2012.

Lam’s (2023) thematic review reports three types of studies related to e-Portfolio pedagogy and assessment, identifying the topics that have been studied, what is missing, and where further exploration is needed. The author’s first conclusion is that although empirical research is adequate, theoretical research is insufficient. Further investigation should include the identification of e-Portfolio trends, developments, and impacts on teacher professional development. The second area in which more research is required is the impact of e-portfolios on students’ perceptions, affect, motivation, learning engagement and self-regulated learning; also needed is more publication of manuals that guide teachers on the use of e-portfolio tools. The third area that requires more investigation is how e-Portfolios can be integrated into English language curricula.

Chapter 3. The chapter presents the conceptual rationale for e-Portfolios, introducing their elements, attributes and processes. It also explains three educational theories –socio-constructivism, assessment for learning and metacognition– that support the integration of e-Portfolios into language learning. At the beginning, Lam presents the four elements of paper-based portfolios: collection of artefacts, selection of samples of students’ work, reflection, and grading of the final portfolio submission that alternates self, peer and teacher feedback to serve formative and summative purposes of assessment. Regarding e-Portfolios, the stages include: the creation of artefacts, students’ revisions after feedback, the curation or organization of digital artefacts, and the circulation or display of the portfolios. The three attributes that Lam identifies correspond to 1) the socio-constructivist approach to portfolio-based instruction and its interactive character, 2) the idea that e-Portfolio curricula situate students at the center of their language learning process, emphasizing agency, autonomy and dialogic learning, and 3) the help students receive to set up and monitor learning goals, review and adjust learning, and employ self and peer-assessment to reflect on their learning.

E-Portfolio classrooms are supported in a socio-constructivist approach to learning. Vygotsky’s Zone of Proximal Development (ZPD) and scaffolding are two key principles that facilitate students’ learning, being scaffolding which provides explicit instruction, shared demonstration, guided practice, and independent practice that helps students learn. Although research findings on the use of e-Portfolios have shown pedagogical impact such as the learning of speaking, receptive and vocabulary skills, literacy development, and research skills, there have also been challenges in their applications. for instance, challenges revising drafts and giving feedback in Facebook-based e-Portfolios (Aydin, 2014), technical problems with social media-based e-Portfolio applications (Zheng & Barrot, 2022), and the social rather than academic character of social networking platforms like Facebook (Kelly, 2018). Lam explains that portfolio assessment and assessment for learning are underpinned by learner-centered pedagogies, and he depicts self-regulated learning as a core component of e-Portfolios.

Chapter 4. In this chapter the author refers to curriculum planning for teaching and assessing with e-Portfolios, describing features and elements of e-Portfolio curricula, introducing the teaching of the four language skills with e-Portfolios, presenting three approaches to the integration of the e-Portfolio into English curricula, and explaining procedural guidelines on how to plan and design e-Portfolio curricula.

Inquiry, reflection and collaboration are the essential features and elements of e-Portfolio curricula in L2 contexts. The E-portfolio curriculum is inquiry-based because it is problem-solving oriented and experiential to help students develop strategic competences to acquire a second or foreign language. It includes reflective practices to encourage students to continuously self-assess and self-reflect on their progress. It is also collaborative because it includes activities where peers, teachers, parents and external members participate and create a sense of shared ownership.

The following are three approaches that articulate the e-Portfolio curriculum approach to the teaching of the four language skills (listening, speaking, reading and writing): a blended approach, a provisional approach and a personal approach. The blended approach consists of integrating e-Portfolio applications into the curriculum through the compilation, curation and learning reflection through multimedia artefacts that can be evaluated summatively. This can be more time-consuming for teachers as students may need training. The provisional approach can be used, for example, for the writing cycle of a course where the collection, curation and reflection process can be more focused. The personal approach occurs when students keep their e-Portfolios as a learning companion throughout their school experience, setting learning goals and selecting artefacts that represent their learning trajectory; this allows them to be independent and reflective and to take charge of their learning.

Regarding e-Portfolio curricula, Lam introduces three curriculum designs: face-to-face (Delett et al., 2001), e-learning (Luić, 2020) and convergence (Luić, 2020). He details the guidelines of an online instructional design to help teachers plan and develop e-Portfolio curricula. This model comprehends four stages: 1) learning outcomes that include a diagnosis of students’ aptitudes, learning needs and preferences, 2) methodology or diverse types of instruction, 3) communication patterns, or how teachers and students will keep in contact for learning purposes, and 4) timeframe and frequency of summative and formative assessment tasks in e-Portfolio curricula.

Chapter 5. This chapter explains the nature of e-Portfolio assessment, its summative and formative purposes, its advantages and limitations, and how it facilitates the integration of teaching, learning and assessment. The author introduces the positivist paradigm, which includes conventional assessment, as well as the constructivist paradigm, in which alternative assessment is contained. He explains that summative assessment evaluates learning, formative assessment supports learning, and ipsative assessment –a subcategory of formative assessment– facilitates students’ self-assessment. In his words, the summative purpose of assessment equates to assessment of learning, the formative purpose is equivalent to assessment for learning, and the ipsative purpose reflects assessment as learning.

E-Portfolios have four advantages. They promote fair assessment because learners can have a longer timeframe within which to showcase their language skills than when they are under limited-time conditions. They facilitate the evaluation of students’ higher order thinking skills, including creativity, problem-solving and analysis. They facilitate authentic and context-situated assessment. They are aligned with curriculum reforms such as assessment for/as learning, authentic assessment, and the use of feedback to enhance teacher and student “feedback literacy”.

According to Lam the use of e-Portfolios as an instructional method requires a knowledge base and practical skills. He presents three learning-oriented elements of assessment that serve formative purposes: process learning, developmental trajectories and metacognition. He introduces four strategies to achieve the formative purpose of e-Portfolio assessment: teaching students how to self-assess, correcting students' work and scoring it only when they have made the corrections, providing timely and professional advice on the quality of students’ self and peer feedback, and including audio- or video-recording of their learning reflections. For the summative purposes of e-Portfolios, Lam proposes evidence of the process of learning (achievements), formal evaluation of learning artefacts (products), use of self- and peer-assessment, and teacher-student conferences (grades). The author claims that e-Portfolios facilitate the integration of teaching, learning and assessment, as they facilitate students’ self-regulation, familiarize students with learning tasks that become assessment tasks, empower teachers’ development of language assessment literacy, and enhances students’ autonomy and language awareness.

Chapter 6. This chapter presents 34 pupils’ perceptions of e-Portfolio assessment literacy in two secondary schools of Hong Kong. The author begins by explaining the three major components of e-Portfolios: compilation, conceptions of assessment and emotional experience. Compilation refers to the process of creation, curation, revision and dissemination of digital artefacts. The enactment of students’ agency and autonomy are some characteristics of this component. Conceptions refer to students’ perceptions of e-Portfolio assessment. Some studies report that e-Portfolios help students to set, monitor and review learning goals and develop language skills, as well as to improve peer assessment when they provide feedback to their coursemates. Finally, while some consider e-Portfolio assessment fulfilling, practical and rewarding, some also find it tedious and time-consuming. Regarding students’ emotional response to keeping e-Portfolios, this can be positive when they share in a community of practice or negative when they feel their privacy has been infringed.

In the study, students responded to a questionnaire, the results of which were mainly positive. Students reported that what was expected from them in e-Portfolios was clearly stated, that they could learn from their mistakes through their e-Portfolio compilation, and that the teacher feedback was constructive. Students were positive about the summative and formative purposes of e-Portfolios and shared how revising their classmates’ e-Portfolios helped them understand and reflect formatively on their language learning. Their emotional experience with e-Portfolios was more positive than negative, privacy and fair teacher summative judgement being their main concerns. Regarding students’ understanding of e-Portfolios and the support they received to create them, they considered teacher scaffolding indispensable. Among the highlighted findings from the interview are the continuous assessment of learning and the sense of ownership that e-Portfolios facilitated.

Chapter 7. In this chapter Lam presents a case study with two L2 teachers in Hong Kong who implemented e-Portfolio in online instruction during the pandemic. The author shows how the participant teachers integrated technology in the implementation of e-Portfolios, as well as the affordances and constraints, and the pedagogical implications. The affordances included teachers’ beliefs, computer literacy and user-friendliness of e-Portfolio tools; and the constraints comprised the provision of information technology support, a testing culture and the integration of e-Portfolios into curricula. Regarding beliefs, both teachers believed that e-Portfolios helped students learn during remote teaching. The first teacher acknowledged the process-writing innovation he could implement and the second one how uploading pre-lesson preparation tasks facilitated flipped teaching. In relation to computer literacy, the first teacher had sound knowledge, but the second teacher was less confident. Lastly, both teachers reported that Google Classroom as an e-Portfolio tool was easy to use. About the constraints, both teachers claimed that the training they had was not enough when the classes switched from face-to-face to remote learning. Regarding the testing culture, both teachers noted that the e-Portfolio contents were limited to what they were expected to comply with in the public exam syllabus, leaving little space for useful e-Portfolio contents compilation. Finally, e-Portfolio implementation was carried out during the pandemic and not sustained after the remote teaching ended. The pedagogical implications include a call for e-Portfolio literacy and the need to inquire about teachers’ beliefs, which facilitates the integration of e-Portfolios into L2 settings.

Chapter 8. This chapter provides an overview of some software e-Portfolio tools in terms of multimodality, mobility, synchronous participation and interactivity. These tools are classified into four types: self-authoring like Microsoft 365, which facilitates the creation of multimodal artefacts with the insertion of links to audios, videos or texts; web 2.0 applications such as wikis, weblogs, and podcasts for peer sharing; commercial e-Portfolio software, for instance Mahara, Schoology, and Seesaw, that facilitates the assignment of homework and teacher/peer feedback; and social networks, especially Facebook and Instagram, that motivate interactions. A concern is the level of reflection with which students engage with these e-Portfolio tools. This is aligned with the need to create a culture of evidence that allows students to acquire metacognition through the process of curating, self-assessing and showcasing evidence of their learning. The chapter reviews six e-Portfolio software tools: Google Classroom, Microsoft Teams, Schoology, Nearpod, Anthology Portfolio and Instagram. The selection was made based on their aim, target users, functions, instructional merits, drawbacks and practicality.

Chapter 9. In this chapter the author presents a synopsis of the nine chapters of the book as well as three takeaways concerning e-Portfolios as an instructional method, as a learning-oriented software application, and as alternative assessment. As an instructional method, e-Portfolios are useful for remote and face-to-face teaching and they can enhance teachers’ digital literacy. E-Portfolio platforms support students’ out-of-school learning and facilitate their participation when they curate, reflect and share their work, as they enhance motivation, self-efficacy, independence and metacognition. As alternative assessment, e-Portfolios serve both summative and formative purposes through self and peer-assessment, through peer-assessment and collaboration, and through timely feedback, which also facilitates assessment for learning.

Further directions of the work presented in this book include investigation of the components, of the theoretical rationale and behavioral acts that facilitate teachers’ and students’ assessment literacy and of the usefulness of e-Portfolio assessment in real classrooms. The following topics deserve further exploration regarding e-Portfolio assessment: 1) teachers’ and students’ engagement in portfolio pedagogy and the compilation of experiences, 2) longitudinal research that explores the learners’ language assessment literacy trajectories with e-Portfolio programs, 3) e-Portfolio applications that can influence students’ emotional well-being in L2 learning, and 4) the study of how social media platforms can be used to support L2 learning in virtual environments.

EVALUATION

This book contributes enormously to the value of continuous, formative and scaffolded assessment when e-Portfolios are used to assess language learning. The author gives a well-supported overview of the knowledge, practices and skills that language teachers should develop in their classes, shows directions for graduate students to do research in this field, and offers stakeholders the potential of e-Portfolios in education. The book is useful for language teachers in EFL and SL contexts at the elementary, secondary and tertiary levels, for pre-, in-service teachers, and for graduate students in the field of language teaching. The book’s step-by-step style is easy to follow and sets the path for graduate students and researchers to continue investigating this topic. The author provides portfolio assessment with a theoretical and research basis as well as a practical one, including two case studies of e-Portfolio implementation and an overview of technological tools that can be used for it.

Some interesting parts of this book are the author’s remarks about the strong connection between portfolio assessment and assessment for/as learning, as well as the trend in some countries like Hong Kong of promoting an assessment culture and portfolio use, especially as a counterweight to the impact of high stakes that authors like Shohamy (2001) have reported. I found of value how portfolio assessment unobtrusively encourages teaching, learning, curriculum development, self- and peer-assessment and life-long learning. It caught my attention that the author claims that the public character of the portfolio increases its effectiveness in teaching and learning. He also refers to the need for teachers to educate students on the use of the portfolio as a learning and assessment tool, and he even refers to a pedagogy of portfolio and a portfolio curriculum that sets the floor for its implementation. A key factor mentioned in the book is the inclusion of reflection in portfolio use as a primary way to impact learning. The implementation of a portfolio in the construction of a class community supports learning as a sociocultural construct; this fact should resonate with the target audience. Lam highlights the rise of portfolio use during and after the COVID-19 pandemic. Some characteristics of portfolios valuable for teachers are the processes of creating, curating, reviewing, and publishing digital artefacts and the dissemination of them with an audience. This is important because portfolio assessment is far from being merely a look at a collection of class artefacts, but rather is a step-by-step guided process that includes preparation, selection, reflection and sharing. The collaborative approach that portfolio use facilitates contributes to learning as a social construct.

REFERENCES

Aydin, S. (2014) EFL writers’ attitudes and perceptions towards F-portfolio use. TechTrends 58(2), 59–77.

Belgrad, S.F. (2013) Portfolios and e-Portfolios: Student reflection, self-assessment, and goal-setting in the learning process. In J.H. McMillan (ed.) Sage Handbook of Research on Classroom Assessment (pp. 331–346). Sage.

Butler, P. (2006). A Review of the Literature on Portfolios and Electronic Portfolios. https://creativecommons.org./licenses/by-nc-sa/2.5/

Delett, J.S., Barnhardt, S. and Kevorkian, J.A. (2001) A framework for portfolio assessment in the foreign language classroom. Foreign Language Annals 34(6), 559–565.

Kelly, N. (2018) Student perceptions and attitudes towards the use of Facebook to support the acquisition of Japanese as a second language. Language Learning in Higher Education 8(2), 217–237.

Lam, R. (2023). E-portfolios: What we know, what we don’t, and what we need to know. RELC Journal 54(1), 208-215. https://doi.org/10.1177/0033688220974102

Luić, L. (2020). Challenges of digital age curriculum convergence [Paper presentation]. ICERI 2020 Proceedings. http://doi.org/10.21125/iceri.2020.1383

Shohamy. E. (2001) The Power of Tests.

Zheng, Y. and Barrot, J.S. (2022) Social media as an e-Portfolio platform: Effects on L2 learners’ speaking performance. Language Learning & Technology 26(1), 1–19.

ABOUT THE REVIEWER

Diana Pineda holds a Ph.D. in Teaching, Learning and Culture from the University of Texas at El Paso, United States. She has worked teaching English as a foreign language (EFL) in Colombia and been a teacher educator at the undergraduate and graduate level since 2000. After her Ph.D., she focused her research on teachers’ professional development to support their practices in the classroom. She is currently working on a study with English schoolteachers from rural Colombia, where she has found a connection between teachers’ practical knowledge and their funds of knowledge. Her interests include classroom assessment and language assessment literacy.