英语二语习得论文材料.doc

Can Metalinguistic Awareness be invited? An Empirical Study of EFL Portfolio-Combined Conversation CourseLi, Chia-Yi 李嘉宜 Chen, I-Chen陳怡真.tw .twDepartment of Applied EnglishSouthern Taiwan University of Technology AbstractSince the standardized spoken tests labeling the scores on the “final performance” provide little information about learners metalinguistic development, learners progress over time and classroom interaction are hardly considered. Delett, Barnhart & Kevorkain (2001) proposed the benefits of the literacy portfolio because this alternative assessment offers an integrative perspective of learning process and a collection of literacy achievement, taking the cognitive, social, academic context into account. Through portfolio assessment, language can be assessed as medium for communication and cognition. Nevertheless, still little to know that portfolio assessment may match the needs of EFL conversation classroom.This experiment was significant in developing a better understanding of EFL technology university learners perceptions and attitude toward portfolio assessment and traditional tests respectively. Two groups of learners participated in the four-month-long case study. The findings showed that the portfolio (experimented) group had a feeling of growing awareness, higher interests and controlling progress. However, more than 65% of them failed to fulfill “portfolios helped self-monitor errors” partially because of the limited linguistic knowledge. On the contrary, non-portfolio (controlled) group expressed that traditional assessment led both oral communication courses to be less motivating and conversational activities to be less diverse. And, they had great concern with teachers error correction and scoring system. The possible suggestions for theory and practice are provided.Keywords: portfolio assessment, metalinguistic awareness, autonomy, authenticity, oral communication. 1. A New Vision1.1 Call for an Alternative ApproachWith regard to mastering oral communication, business students used to show the desire to pursue knowledge and the stronger commitment to learning. The mental awareness of business-majored students often affects the ways they interact with others. Not only cannot traditional testing satisfy the needs for assessing the achievement of more process-oriented learning, it is also unable to measure the dynamics of business majors. Since such standardized spoken tests (e.g. interview, etc.) labeling the scores on the “final performance” provide little information about metalinguistic development, they hardly record learners progress over time and consider classroom interactions. In addition, traditional assessment rises up learning anxiety and fails to reflect learners daily efforts. As a result, portfolio approach appears well for collaboration between students and teacher. It is viewed as a tap in the cognitive process of EFL students through learners perspectives of learning.There has been a call for more attention to a better assessment approach to measure learners progress. Portfolio is a means for recording experiences, reflections, and thoughts. This approach can help EFL learners actively participate in assessing their own work and keep track of their individual progress. Delett, Barnhart, and Kevorkain (2001) proposed that “Portfolios provide a portrait of what students know and what they can do, offer a multidimensional perspective of student progress over time, encourage student self-reflection and participation, and link instruction and assessment.” In fact, portfolio assessment has been implemented in L1 settings in these decades, more research is still needed in the EFL classrooms. In Taiwan, the portfolio assessment has been practiced in writing classroom, centered on correction or feedback (Chen, 1999; Hsieh, 2000). However, this study would investigate Taiwanese EFL college students speaking experiences and reflection. Moreover, this study assumed that the interaction was essential of the portfolio process in which language, cognition, autonomy might influence EFL learners acceptance or rejection of the portfolio oral proficiency.1.2 The Significance of the StudyTo give a clear picture of language growth of EFL students, this portfolio assessment was limited to oral communication course. The major significance of this study was:a. A record of students progress and self-assessmentIt is believed that the recording system can develop learners abilities to review, reflect, and set goals for oral communication. According to Fisher (1991, p.1), portfolio must contribute to personal development “by enhancing self-esteem, developing self-awareness, improving motivation”. For intermediate-level EFL learners, recording the processes assists recognizing achievement of in and out of school, give an evidence of individual social, cultural, cognitive achievement.b. Promoting metalinguistic awarenessAlong with stimulating self-reflection, which can examine strength and weakness, there has been a growing awareness of the use of comprehensible output. Lylis (1993) believed that effective learners made connections between reading, writing, and language learning. The more autonomous learners develop, the more effective feedback they could provide. It was believed that those independent speakers could articulate their understanding and express how they solve speaking/listening problems. c. Language use as meaning-constructed behavior in real-life contextMoreover, portfolios establish a dynamic partnership engaging students, teacher, and society. Classroom interaction in touch with real-life language develops effective skills and strategies because of participating in language use for authentic purposes. In the portfolio process, language tasks give opportunities for production and students are encouraged to achieve a particular communicative goal (Swain, 1985; Willis, 1996; Guarento and Morley, 2001).1.3 Research QuestionsBased on the background and assumption above, the researcher conducted the study on the implementation of portfolio in EFL context. The research questions aimed to investigate: 1.) Students self-reflection and metalinguistic experiences.2.) Students attitude toward English learning in a portfolio-combined course.3.) The prospected students benefits from portfolio assessment. The essential elements of the framework of portfolio assessment are: the participants (language manager), the researcher/teacher (facilitator/ consultant), the assessment criteria, the authentic tasks, and the learner interactions. Research DesignLiterature review &ConstructionExamination conditionsTasksAssessmentcriteriaAssessment conditions and trainingKnowledgeand abilityKnowledgeand abilityEvaluationand ReflectionLanguage worksBusiness StudentsExaminers Figure1. A conceptual framework for portfolio assessment2. Review of Literature2.1 Portfolio as an alternative assessmentWith the recent concentration on assessments that record learners growth, reflection, and ownership, portfolios have been a form of authentic assessments. The portfolio tasks could integrate all aspects of language-reading, writing, speaking, and listening as well as higher-level thinking skills and strategies. Hamayan (1995: 213-215) reviewed the characteristics of alternative assessment that made it useful in oral training classroom: 1) Proximity to actual language use and performance; 2) A holistic view of language; 3) An integrative view of learning; 4) Developmental appropriateness; 5) Multiple referencing. Hamayan (1995) also claimed that alternative assessment procedures are based on activities that have authentic communicative function. The language use is assessed according to actual performance in authentic situations, which the learners encounter in daily life. Therefore, through portfolio approach, it is possible to evaluate language as a tool for communication rather than the structural analysis. These multidimensional perspectives cover the process integrating knowledge and transform student attitude toward learning (Marzano, 1994). The practical reasons for using portfolios for communication were summarized (Hart, 1994: 1). It aids a student in self-assessment, a crucial life skill. 2) It is a highly effective instructional tool as well as an assessment tool. 3) It exemplifies language use as meaning-constructed behavior. 4) It supports student ownership for improvement. 5) It keeps the focus on genuine, student-oriented purposes. 6) It promotes audience awareness; 7) It emphasizes written and spoken activities that reflect each students unique background and interests. It helps a student develop a very positive attitude. 8) It promotes student-teacher interaction and collaboration among students.2.2 Theoretical FrameworkLinking instruction and assessmentThe portfolios have been linking instruction, learning, and assessment (Merzano & Costa, 1988; Hsieh, 2000). This approach has attempted to realize the perspectives of the participants as they construct their meaning because portfolios allow frequent opportunities to practice authentic language use in relevant contexts and for specific purposes. Therefore, interaction plays an essential role in the portfolio process in which the “construct of the self exits. As Lylis (1993) commented, that language teachers might use a “formative type of assessment that is diagnostic in nature and informs teachers and students alike of progress made” (p.13). By exploring the weakness or strength of business major, students would commit to their ownerships for oral language development. Different from traditional assessment, the portfolio approach has viewed culture as an essential ingredient to understanding the ESL students experience (Coballes-Vega, 1992). Portfolio was applicable to this study because it made business students from diverse background willing to talk about how they learn to speak and recall process. Actually, in recent decades, the concern of assessment has changed to multidimensional, and the focus has switched from product to process (Hebert, 1992; Merzano & Costa, 1988; Krest, 1990; Poston, 1993). The Portfolio process and Cognitive DevelopmentThe portfolio as the collection of students growth serves as a medium to understand students cognitive processes which connect social, cultural, and linguistics factors (Gonzalez, 1999). According to Hansen (1992), students responded to reflective questions, such as” How does this item show my growth?” demonstrating their individual point of views and uncovering the awareness of the literacy. And, in Heberts portfolio project, “Learning Experience forms”, adapting Gardners “Theory of Multiple Intelligences” (musical, linguistic, logical- mathematical, spatial, bodily kinesthetic, interpersonal, and intrapersonal) reacted again the traditional explanation of intelligence. The forms were used to recognize teachers relationship with students. Herbert termed “inside language”- what we do in our classroom and “outside language”-what we say we do in our classroom. The former reflected the beliefs, experiences, values, and confidence, but the latter was influenced by learning environment, test sores, and language curriculum (Herbert, 1992). Indeed, “inside language” is more difficult because there were some linguistic limitations that made it more difficult to share understanding and beliefs of EFL learners.Authentic experiences to EFL learnerStudent portfolios are self-selected (Hansen, 1992), so their choice demonstrated significant involvement with speaking and listening at the appropriate level of English language proficiency. Hansen (1992) reported that the comments of the literacy portfolio from peers and family encouraged a relevant curriculum. With respect to interests and concern of learners, evaluation could be more comprehensive. Moreover, Valencia (1990) concluded guiding principles of assessment: authentic, continuous, multidimensional, and collaborative. This study generalized that around 70% among the portfolio group and the non-portfolio group agreed with the implementation of the authentic assessment. Valencia agreed with the principle of authenticity for good assessment should mirror understanding and “resemble actual classroom and life tasks” (Valencia, 1990). That was, they could integrate into ongoing classroom life and instruction. Not only did students listen and speak for a variety of authentic tasks, they should be presented with the various texts during assessment. Additionally, the portfolio experience is meaningful to EFL students because the process is authentic. Their reflection expressed how and why students express themselves (Poston, 1993). The uses of checklists, reviews, conferences, student oral presentations, oral reading, or interviews with teacher or peers on audiocassettes are included. Tied to the portfolio process and students experiences, we might collect language samples of student works over a period of time to track student development.Previous model of collaborative portfolio Hsieh (2000) advocated the model of “collaborative portfolio”. The relevant research emphasized that teacher and learners had to cooperate together for evaluation and collection. This collaborative portfolio is also good for the present study because of the big-size classroom and limited language proficiency. Jenkins pointed out the contents of this model (Jenkins, 1996, cited in Hsieh, 2000) must capture students understanding across the three areas: a.) Affective development, b.) Cognitive development c.) Metacognitive development. Jekins (p21-22, cited in Hsieh, 2000) believed that collaborative assessments possess the characteristics: 1) Genuine literacy endeavors and a variety of social context. 2) The purpose of monitoring students development. 3) Taping students affective, cognitive, metacognitive understanding. 4) Encouraging self-evaluation. 5) Process-oriented assessment. Through well-designed portfolios, students can document the process of trail and error in language development. While speaking in the English language, students actively process the content of the passage, selectively attend to interesting element, relate new information to what they already knew, and infer the meaning of unknown words from the context. On the other hand, teachers must take the responsibility for guiding learners to evaluate. For example, teacher could help learners set up criteria and make sure “the collaboration profiles students abilities”.3. Methodology3.1 ParticipantsTwo groups of learners, who received one-year freshman English, with four skills training and the sense of basic sentence patterns, were taking “English Oral Training” course in the fall semester of the sophomore year at a university of technology. All participants meet the following criteria: a) categorized as the intermediate-low to intermediate language proficiency level as measured by their score of General English Proficiency Level; b) business majors: showing no prior portfolio experiences and strong commitments to their learning; c) the age ranged from 19 to 22 year. This study proposed that the controlled group with traditional assessment was Industrial Management department students and the experimented group with portfolio assessment was Finance and Banking majors (see Figure 2). The research participants were expected to benefit in this study in the followings: a) the optimal chance to practice their written and oral communicative skills in real context; b) more aware of English learning process; c) promoting self-reflection through the portfolio approach. Figure 2. Experimented and Controlled groupsGroupMajorMale Female TotalControlled Industrial Management251540ExperimentedFinance and Banking103040TotalBusiness majors3545803.2 Design and ProcedureThe process of this experiment is described as Figure 3. The study employed a teacher/researcher-student partnership. The main focus was on exploration of students perceptions and attitude toward portfolio assessment and traditional tests respectively. The researcher collected data through field observation, students reflection from evaluation form, questionnaires, and information of student portfolio of experimental group. The products of students portfolio were arranged in a time order (see Appendix V) and evaluated by peers or researcher (teacher).There were three main stages in this four-month-long case study. Around the middle September was the fist stage. Basing the content of the instructions on learners needs, both the experimented and the controlled groups were required to fill out self-reflection questionnaire (Appendix I) and survey their interests and general attitude toward practicing oral communication (Appendix II). Then, during the October to December, the second stage, all participants were given the same instructional activities. The only difference depended on the testing method: the experimented group had to keep their works in their portfolio, so that their learning progress could be detected. The performance of the controlled group was given standardized tests based on scoring and one pencil-and-pen test. Near the end of the study, in the third stage, the final questionnaires (Appendix IV) were conducted to explore the participants feedback toward assessment tools around late December. Portfolio assessmentl Record-keepingl Self/peer evaluationl Teacher-student conferenceTraditional assessmentl Paper-and-pencil testl Oral proficient test* Self-ReflectionQuestionnaire* Learner attitude to