The Effect of Portfolio Assessment on EFL Learners’ Reading Comprehension and Motivation
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This study highlighted the humanistic-transformational perspectives via portfolio assessment which offers a conceptual framework for teaching and assessment. More specifically, it attempted toexplore the effectof portfolioassessmenton EFL learners’reading comprehension ability and motivation in the context of Iran. It adopted the quasi-experimental design comprising the pretest-treatment-posttest paradigm. To achieve the purpose, the researchers collected the triangulated data about the participants. Two classes were selected as the experimental and control groups from TabaranInstitute of Higher Education. They were 65 female university students majoring in translation. The only difference between the two groups was integrating portfolio into learning strategy-based instruction for the experimental group (portfolio-based instruction vs. non-portfolio instruction). At the post-testing stage, the both groups were retested through the reading comprehension test and the motivation questionnaire. A self-report assessment was also utilized to increase the credibility of the motivation test. The resultobtained from Mann Whitney U tests and t-testsrevealed that portfolio assessment as a constructivist strategy empowers participants’ reading comprehension and motivation.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.003 | 0.012 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".