Portfolio Based Assessment in a Culturally Diverse ESL Classroom: Understanding Learners’ Autonomous Learning Practices
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Purpose – The promotion of portfolios and portfolio-based assessment in the teaching of writing skills is not a novel approach at both secondary and tertiary levels. Apart from the interest on the writing process, portfolio is popular because of its role in enabling variation of writing forms. Interestingly, with portfolio assessment, students’ actual classroom performance is facilitated and assessed by the teacher, making it a student – centered assessment, which is advantageous in disclosing more useful and effective information for teachers and students. Apart from being advanced as an significant and beneficial tool in teaching as well as testing in English as a foreign language, portfolio is also seen as an alternative assessment tool that enables opportunities for authentic, active language learning, and evaluation of student progress. In addition, as formative assessment, portfolio assessment is also regarded as a type that promotes learner autonomy. The use of portfolio evaluation and the promotion of independent learning among English as a Second Language (ESL) tertiary students of various ethnicities will be discussed in this study.Methodology – Data was acquired from two students via face-to-face interviews for this pilot project. They were selected through purposeful, and homogeneous sampling. Sociocultural theory and a re-conceptualized conception of learner autonomy are the study's research parameters.Findings – While preparing and completing their portfolio-based assessment, these participants did experience or practise the three sub aspects (motivational, affective, and metacognitive) of this psychological element of autonomy.Significance – Portfolio evaluation allows students to exercise autonomous learning in its various psychological sub aspects, according to the findings of this study. The findings are hoped to aid both English as a Second Language (ESL) instructors and students in their efforts to better understand and improve the teaching and learning of writing skills through the usage of a writing portfolio.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.005 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| 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 teacher head, 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".