Implementing Portfolio-Based Learning (PoBL) for L2 Training: Vietnamese EFL Learners’ Motivational Orientations and Listening Achievement
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Whilst previous researchers commonly report on the effect of portfolio-based instruction on L2/EFL (second language/English as a foreign language) learners’ language performance, very few studies examine its impact on their learning motivation. Drawing on expectancy-value theory, the current study examines how the implementation of a portfolio-based listening course may affect language learners’ L2 motivation and skill development. This study adopted a mixed method approach with Vietnamese EFL learners in higher education as its participants who were administered a motivation questionnaire, listening comprehension tests, and semi-structured interviews. Both quantitative statistics and qualitative content analysis were applied for data analysis purposes. The results indicated that the portfolio-based program in this study had a significant positive impact on the participants’ motivational orientations, especially their expectancy components (i.e., their self-efficacy and learning control beliefs) and their L2 listening accomplishment but not on the value aspects. Pedagogical implications are discussed. Alors que les chercheurs précédents font des rapports fréquents à propos des incidences sur la performance langagière des apprenants de L2/ALE (langue seconde/anglais langue étrangère) qu’a l’instruction basée sur le portfolio, très peu d’études examinent son impact sur leur motivation d’apprentissage. En s’inspirant de la théorie de l’expectancy-value, la présente étude examine comment la mise en place d’un cours d’écoute basé sur le portfolio peut affecter la motivation et le développement des compétences des apprenants de langue seconde. Cette étude a adopté une démarche à plusieurs méthodes auprès d’apprenants universitaires d’anglais langue étrangère vietnamiens à qui on a administré un questionnaire de motivation, des tests de compréhension orale et des entrevues semi-structurées. On a appliqué à la fois des statistiques quantitatives et une analyse qualitative du contenu à des fins d’analyse des données. Les résultats ont indiqué que le programme de cette étude, basé sur le portfolio, avait un impact positif significatif sur les orientations motivationnelles des participants, particulièrement sur les composantes de leurs attentes (c’est-à-dire leur efficacité personnelle et leurs croyances dans le contrôle de l’apprentissage) et leurs résultats d’écoute, mais pas sur les aspects de valeur. On discute des implications pédagogiques.
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 | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".