V _. z. ,
Emu ,
. 4%.? 7
. . ӣ33
.. S! n
2.
ran...»
1 .5:
;,......n..u..ux ‘
. . ‘
. . , q
f. M m.
y. {z u: . a...
are Aquwfl. Ext”?
.fiwa W: .

w.

3

£32}? 5» L...
1.... 74...?!

.4 » If...»
11:4

. .2.

an,

u.
.“wnmmmi.

9..

I. I. 13.: V
.35?
.
ad. \ I
4993.
«£5548.
ii
. $.11

 

J...
£5.

. .
.2...
14?

,vl‘x
.4, hr?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

dd

’Ikz
3‘..-

AI’
Sci?

L

.a

23K:

.9

it in“... A»:
\Ufia 16364;

3).. ..
Eta-l.

 

. , .1
n ”miuflfiitfl,
‘ . (“fiat
. :3 z .
-firfizflawsu .. .r k.
7.. 5. $3. .1. fit...” .u.
a .61 .9 :. tn; 03:2. :57.

 

. p u I Q o,
.mmn,.....u.wymaw

mg? . . a ,
:3. $3 :fifiiiiéfigvégé “Ewmfigwéfi

.21? 2%

2‘... f-

 

«I: w"

new“

you?
(37?:3??

This is to certify that the
thesis entitled

IMPLEMENTING PORTFOLIO ASSESSMENT
IN SECOND-YEAR GERMAN LANGUAGE CLASSROOMS

presented by
ANGELIKA NATASCHA KRAEMER

has been accepted towards fulfillment
of the requirements for the

Master of degree in Teaching English to Speakers

 

 

Arts of Other Languages
, /" /,¢"; / '5’
' .. .--‘ I I" K, . ,2"
k -, L, 0C1

 

" Major Professor’s Signature
May / ?T 25210; 5"-

Date

 

MSU is an Affirmative Action/Equal Opportunity Institution

LIBRARIES
MICHIGAN STATE UNIVERSITY
EAST LANSING, MICH 48824-1048

 

PLACE IN RETURN Box to remove this checkout from your record.
TO AVOID FINES return on or before date due.
MAY BE RECALLED with earlier due date if requested.

 

DATE DUE

DATE DUE

 

DATE DUE

 

KW} 312232611?

#3611? 67 502659

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

2/05 c:/ClRC/DateDuo.indd-p.15

 

 

IMPLEMENTING PORTFOLIO ASSESSMENT
IN SECOND-YEAR GERMAN LANGUAGE CLASSROOMS

By

Angelika Natascha Kraemer

A THESIS

Submitted to
Michigan State University
in partial fiilfillment of the requirements
for the degree of

MASTER OF ARTS

Department of Linguistics and Germanic, Slavic, Asian and African Languages

2005

ABSTRACT

IMPLEMENTING PORTFOLIO ASSESSMENT
IN SECOND-YEAR GERMAN LANGUAGE CLASSROOMS

By

Angelika Natascha Kraemer

This study describes the design, implementation, and effectiveness of a portfolio that
was used as an alternative assessment tool within the framework of a communicative
second-year German language classroom at Michigan State University. The portfolio
covered all four language skills (i.e., speaking, listening, reading, and writing) and
integrated skill competence in meaningful contexts, looked at students’ work over time,
and assessed it in accordance with transparent standards, making it a valid measure of
assessment. Data were collected from eleven students over the course of one summer
semester of approximately seven weeks. Data sources included student pre- and post-
self—assessments and questionnaires, classroom observations, interviews, and the
portfolios. Students’ perceptions of this alternative in assessment as a means of
improving their overall German proficiency are reported and provide evidence of student
Ieaming and teaching effectiveness. A general preference for portfolios over traditional

assessment tools (i.e., written and oral exams) emerged.

Copyright by
ANGELIKA NATASCHA KRAEMER
2005

To my two families

iv

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

I would like to thank all those who supported me in completing this thesis.

I am very grateful to Charlene Polio, my advisor, who assisted me in all endeavors
regarding this thesis and who provided invaluable comments and suggestions before,
during, and after the data collection.

I would like to thank Tom Lovik and George Peters, who allowed me to redesign the
German course and gave me all the necessary leeway in order to implement the portfolio
as an assessment tool in the classroom.

I am greatly indebted to Dennie Hoopingarner. His technological assistance came to
the rescue many times and he offered many helpful suggestions regarding the use of
technology for assessment purposes.

A special thanks to all the students who participated in the study and who provided
valuable feedback and insights. Without their cooperation, this entire thesis had not been
possible.

Finally, I would also like to thank my friends and colleagues in the Department of
Linguistics and German, Slavic, Asian and African Languages at Michigan State
University in general, especially Kristin Graw, who not only discussed my thesis work

with me but who were also there to help me through all sorts of difficulties.

TABLE OF CONTENTS

LIST OF TABLES... ....................................................................................................... viii

LIST OF FIGURES ......................................................................................................... ix
CHAPTER 1

INTRODUCTION ........................................................................................................... 1
CHAPTER 2

CONTEXT AND METHODOLOGY ............................................................................. 12

2.1 Setting up the Context ........................................................................................ 13

2.1.1 The Department ............................................................................... 13

2.1.2 The Course ....................................................................................... 14

2.1.3 The Participants ............................................................................... 17

The Students ............................................................................... 17

The Teacher ................................................................................ 18

2.2 Data Collection .................................................................................................. l9

2. 2. 1 Student Pre-Self-Assessment ............................................................ 20

2.2.2 Pre-Questionnaire ............................................................................ 21

2.2.3 Classroom Observations .................................................................. 22

2. 2. 4 Student Post-Self-Assessment ........................................................... 22

2.2.5 Post-Questionnaire .......................................................................... 23

2.2.6 Interviews ......................................................................................... 23

2. 2. 7 The Portfolio .................................................................................... 24

2.3 Data Analyses .................................................................................................... 24
CHAPTER 3

THE PORTFOLIO AND ITS IMPLEMENTATION ..................................................... 26

3.1 Writing ............................................................................................................... 28

3.2 Reading .............................................................................................................. 32

3.3 Speaking ............................................................................................................. 36

3.4 Listening ............................................................................................................. 41

3.5 Additional Elements ........................................................................................... 45

3.6 Grading Scales ................................................................................................... 47

3. 6. 1 Speaking Assignments ...................................................................... 48

3. 6.2 Listening Assignments ...................................................................... 49

3.6.3 Reflective Essay ................................................................................ 50

3. 64 Writing Assignments ........................................................................ 50

3. 6.5 Reading Assignments ....................................................................... 52

3.6.6 Unit Test ........................................................................................... 52

vi

3. 6. 7 Layout ............................................................................................... 53

CHAPTER 4

RESULTS AND DISCUSSION ...................................................................................... 55
4.1 Writing ............................................................................................................... 59
4.2 Reading .............................................................................................................. 65
4.3 Speaking ............................................................................................................. 70
4.4 Listening ............................................................................................................. 73
4.5 Evaluation of the Portfolio Process .................................................................... 82

CHAPTER 5

CLONCLUSION ............................................................................................................. 95
5.1 Limitations ......................................................................................................... 95
5.2 Implications ........................................................................................................ 98
5.3 Future Directions ................................................................................................ 100

APPENDICES ................................................................................................................. 102
APPENDIX A: Student Pre-Self-Assessment ....................................................... 103
APPENDIX B: Pre-Questionnaire ........................................................................ 106
APPENDIX C: Observation Form ........................................................................ 109
APPENDIX D: Post-Questionnaire ....................................................................... 110
APPENDIX E: Interview Outline ......................................................................... 113
APPENDIX F: Preliminary Information Sheet about the Portfolio Assessment.. 114
APPENDIX G: Final Information Sheet about the Portfolio Assessment ............ 115
APPENDIX H: Portfolio Assignment Schedule .................................................... 117
APPENDIX 1: Explanation of Abbreviations used by the Teacher to Correct

Assignments ................................................................................. 1 1 9
APPENDIX J: Essay Topics ................................................................................ 120
APPENDIX K: Peer Feedback Form .................................................................... 121
APPENDIX L: Internet Activity ........................................................................... 122
APPENDIX M: Picture Description Tasks ............................................................ 124
APPENDIX N: Listening Comprehension Worksheet .......................................... 125
APPENDIX 0: Grading Scale for Speaking Assignments .................................... 127
APPENDIX P: Grading Scale for Writing Assignments ...................................... 128
APPENDIX Q: Students’ Responses from the Reflective Essays ......................... 129
APPENDIX R: Sample Teacher Feedback and Assessment of an Essay ............. 134
APPENDIX S: Class and Homework Schedule for Days of Classroom
Observations ................................................................................. 1 36

APPENDIX T: Sample Assessment of a Portfolio ............................................... 137

BIBLIOGRAPHY ............................................................................................................ 140

vii

Table 1:

Table 2:

Table 3:

Table 4:

Table 5:

Table 6:

Table 7:

Table 8:

LIST OF TABLES

Essay Topics Overview ................................................................................ 29
Internet Activities Overview ........................................................................ 34
Picture Stories Overview ............................................................................. 37
Picture Description Task Organization ........................................................ 38
Listening Comprehension Worksheets ........................................................ 42
Weighting of Portfolio Assignments ............................................................ 47
Grading of Portfolio Layout ......................................................................... 53
Frequency of Participants’ Use of Learning Strategies ................................ 76

viii

Figure 1:

Figure 2:

Figure 3:

Figure 4:

Figure 5:

Figure 6:

LIST OF FIGURES

Participants’ Rating of their Writing Skills .................................................. 6]
Participants’ Rating of their Reading Skills ................................................. 66
Participants’ Rating of their Speaking Skills ............................................... 70
Participants’ Rating of their Listening Skills ............................................... 74
Summary of Participants’ Language Skills Ratings .................................... 79
Language Skills Medians and Means ........................................................... 82

ix

CHAPTER 1

INTRODUCTION

Ever since the 19805, criticisms regarding the standardized testing culture of the United
States were strengthened by US students’ poor performance in comparison with their
international peers (Supovitz & Brennan, 1997). As David Kearns, chairman of Xerox
Corporation, stated in 1988:
From a business perspective, the education system presents an alarming picture. It
is one in which too little is expected of too many. [The system] is failing
[students and dedicated teachers] because schools are organized to meet the
challenges of the 19th--not the let--century. And until those challenges are
updated in line with reality, the system will continue to fail. . .. The task before us
is the restructuring of our entire public education system. (p. 2)
One such attempt of restructuring the educational system was by reforming assessment
practices. It has been pointed out repeatedly in the assessment literature that classroom
evaluation greatly influences what teachers teach and what students learn. Not only has it
an influence on what students perceive as important to learn and on their motivation, but
it also “structures their approaches to timing and personal study, consolidates Ieaming,
and affects the development of enduring learning strategies and skills. It appears to be
one of the most potent forces influencing education” (Crooks, 1988, as cited in Moss et
al., 1992, p. 12). Therefore, it is crucial to assess the complete range of knowledge,
interests, and skills that instruction claims to cover. This led to a movement away from
traditional testing methods toward performance assessment. Proponents of this
movement such as Gardner (1992), Resnick and Resnick (1992) and Wiggins (1989)

claimed that new forms of assessment would lead to improved instruction and learning.

Such new assessment methods could resolve the criticisms that were identified in the

existing testing culture: constraining effects on instruction, on the role of the teacher, and
on students’ Ieaming (Ponte, 2000).

Resnick and Resnick (1992) defined performance assessment as “a form of
assessment that uses direct judgments and evaluations of performances rather than
indirect indicators of competence” (p. 61). By means of these performance assessment
practices, they claim, the constraining effects of high-stakes standardized testing can be
remedied and teaching and Ieaming can be enhanced. For example, teachers are actively
involved in the creation of grading rubrics and assessment tasks which enables them to
better define their instructional goals (Darling-Hammond, 1994). Students are also
actively involved in their own assessment which will most likely motivate them more and
therefore lead to better Ieaming (Frazier & Paulson, 1992; Valencia & Place, 1994).
Garcia and Pearson (1994) added that students will be faced with complex tasks that
require an integrated application of knowledge and strategy.

Brown and Hudson (1998) proposed a more differentiated, threefold categorization of
assessment types. Rather than contrasting traditional assessments (which they
categorized as “selected-response assessments,” including true-false, matching and
multiple choice) with performance assessments, they included performance assessments
along with fill-in and short-answer assessments in what they referred to as “constructed-
response assessments.” They then distinguished “constructed—response assessments”
from “personal-response assessments” which go beyond a mere construction of responses
and that “allow students to communicate what they want to communicate” (p. 663). Such
alternative assessment practices include portfolios, conferences, diaries, and self- and

peer-assessments as well as checklists, journals, logs, video- and audiotapes, self-

evaluations, and teacher observations (Brown & Hudson, 1998; Huerta-Macias, 1995).
In their article, Brown and Hudson also offered a comprehensive overview of common
characteristics of alternative assessment based on three research papers, listing twelve
positive characteristics for alternative assessment which

(1) require students to perform, create, produce, or do something;

(2) use real-world contexts or simulations;

(3) are nonintrusive in that they extend the day-to-day classroom activities;

(4) allow students to be assessed on what they normally do in class every day;

(5) use tasks that represent meaningfiil instructional activities;

(6) focus on processes as well as products;

(7) tap into higher level thinking and problem-solving skills;

(8) provide information about both the strengths and weaknesses of students;

(9) are multiculturally sensitive when properly administered;

(10) ensure that people, not machines, do the scoring, using human judgment;

(11) encourage open disclosure of standards and rating criteria; and

(12) call upon teachers to perform new instructional and assessment roles.
These characteristics highlight improvements in the testing and learning processes, an
enhanced role of the teacher, and the strengthening of students’ learning, and thereby
address exactly the criticism of the traditional testing culture mentioned above (i.e.,
constraining effects on instruction, on the role of the teacher, and on students’ learning).

While this list appears appealing and convincing, alternative assessment is not

without its problems. Just because this type of assessment can have the advantages listed

above, it does not necessarily mean that it automatically will (Arter & Spandel,1992).

Careful and well thought-out design, audience, purpose, and implementation are crucial
elements for effective use of alternative assessment methods. Also, logistical issues
involve an increased investment in time and resources, and interpretation involves the
need to set clear and fair standards.

One of the most widely mentioned, but in empirical studies rarely addressed,
objections to alternative assessment is in terms of validity, reliability, and objectivity
(Banta, 2003; Brown & Hudson, 1998; Huerta-Macias, 1995). While Huerta-Macias
suggests that the procedures inherent in alternative assessment (i.e., the actual
performance of real-life tasks) are “in and of themselves valid” (p. 9) and accurately
reflect the specific concept that is attempted to be measured, Brown and Hudson strongly
object to that claim, stating that “the issues of reliability and validity must be dealt with
for alternative assessment just as they are for any other type of assessment — in an open,
honest, clear, demonstrable and convincing way” (p. 656). They continue that the
strategies outlined by Huerta-Macias (i.e., credibility, auditability, multiple tasks, rater
training, clear criteria, and triangulation) can improve reliability and validity, however,
they caution that these strategies alone are not sufficient and that sound and transparent
measures need to be designed that can be used to demonstrate reliability and validity of
the assessment procedure involved. As Gitomer and Duschl (1995) put it, in order to be
reliable and valid, assessment criteria must be public and explicit. Specifically, reliability
issues in alternative assessment should (1) involve interrater reliability; (2) ensure
objectivity; (3) prevent mechanical errors; (4) standardize rating and grading; and (5)

ensure access to resources. Validity issues concern (1) demonstration of validity for

decision making purposes; (2) adequate exemplification of students’ work; and (3)
identification of intervening variables (Brown & Hudson, 1998).

The fact that human judgment is involved in alternative assessment subjects it to
issues concerning objectivity. However, this human factor poses a big advantage over
machine-scored ratings which restrict the diversity of available assessment formats.
When determining the use and implementation of certain assessment types, Brown and
Hudson (1998) pointed out that “all of the different types of tests are important to keep
because all of them have distinct strengths and weaknesses” (p. 657). An exclusive
reliance on one assessment method would render the overall assessment invalid. All
researchers and teachers agree that multiple sources of information allow for better
decision making when assessing students.

Portfolio assessment is one method of alternative assessment that has increasingly
gained popularity in classrooms across the United States. In defining portfolios, Yancey
(1996) identified five principles that offer a broad range of advantages over traditional
testing methods:

(1) A portfolio is a collection of a student’s work.
(2) It is created by a process of selection.
(3) It includes the student’s reflection on his or her Ieaming.
(4) It communicates something about the student, his or her values, and the
context in which the portfolio was created.
(5) It entails evaluation about the entries and the Ieaming connected with them.
In addition, Yancey defined two additional key characteristics: “portfolios are

developmental, and they are diverse” (p. 86). One further characteristic should be added:

Portfolios need to be purposeful (Arter & Spandel, 1992). By giving the students a more
active role in their own assessment through these principles, they become more aware of
their own strengths and weaknesses.

The complexity and heterogeneity of students’ learning require not only diverse
forms of students’ work, but also multiple methods of assessment (Maki, 2004), and
portfolios lend themselves to co-implementation with traditional standardized testing.
Gathering multiple sources of student work and including contextualized real-life tasks
make this type of assessment more authentic than traditional tests (Arter & Spandel,
1992; Cook-Benjamin, 2003; Darling-Hammond & Ancess, 1996). Authenticity refers to
the fact that the portfolio will directly reflect what was done in the classroom and
emphasized in the curriculum. Also, rather than being assessed on a scale that ranks and
thus compares all students in a class, portfolios longitudinally assess the work of an
individual student (Gitomer & Duschl, 1995) which renders assessment more authentic.
Such criterion-referenced measures take performance abilities as well as complex
cognitive tasks into account, which norm-referenced tests fail to measure (Darling-
Harnmond & Ancess, 1996).

Moss et a1. (1992) identified another advantage of using portfolios over traditional
tests for assessment purposes: “With standardized scores, consumers of the information
must rely on expert assertions about the meaningfulness of the results because they do not
have access to the evidence on which the conclusions were based” (p.14). With
portfolios, all stakeholders (e. g., students, parents, teachers, administrators) can access
samples of the students’ work, making this type of assessment more transparent to

outsiders.

Gitomer and Duschl (1995) listed three conditions that portfolio assessment must

meet:
(1) Portfolio assessment should attend to knowledge and skills that are deemed
important within the discipline.
(2) Portfolio assessment should contribute to instruction and Ieaming.
(3) Portfolio assessment should contribute to an accountability process within an
educational system.
These three conditions all highlight the importance of anchoring instruction in a
meaningful context.

A review of existing portfolio systems, rather than their theoretical underpinnings,
reveals that the purposes and contents for portfolios vary broadly. Previous research has
focused mainly on portfolio assessment in primary and secondary education, and in
higher education most prominently on the field of English as a Second Language, as
pointed out by Hamp-Lyons (1991). Commonly, in all these educational settings only
one language skill (mainly writing) was under investigation (Valencia, 1990; Valencia &
Calfee, 1991; Yancey, 1996). A few studies have been conducted that focused on science
classrooms as well (Gitomer & Duschl, 1995; Koretz, Stecher, & Deibert, 1993; Spicuzza
& Cunningham, 2003). Research on foreign language classroom assessment has been
lagging behind other areas of instruction. Padilla et a1. (1996) examined growth in
foreign language proficiency (Chinese, Japanese, Korean, and Russian) in all four skills
by investigating portfolios in elementary and high school programs. Four major findings
resulted from their study: (1) It was possible to document growth in foreign language

programs; (2) the more a teacher took purpose and audience into account, the more useful

the portfolio proved as alternative assessment; (3) the portfolio contents differed by
instruction and grade level; and (4) objective measures of oral proficiency need to be
implemented. Kevorkian (1997) offered a rationale for adopting portfolio assessment in
the foreign language classroom and highlighted the characteristics of showing progress,
educational benefits of full incorporation into instruction, students’ active involvement,
and enhanced relationships between teachers and students. While she herself was only
involved in developing a portfolio assessment manual for the National Capital Language
Resource Center, she reported on pilot test teachers’ successful implementation of
portfolios (Bamhardt & Kevorkian, 1999).

The most comprehensive study in a foreign language classroom was with Spanish at
the high school level (Ponte, 2000). Ponte worked with a high school teacher on the
implementation of a four-skill portfolio, however, discrepancies in the views of the
teacher and the researcher led to a portfolio that emphasized reading and writing and
allowed little room for listening and speaking. Nonetheless, her study reports that
portfolio assessment enhanced instructional practices by raising the teacher’s awareness
of relevant assessment issues and also affected student learning in a positive way by
giving the students an active role in their own assessment. Ponte, citing Linn, Baker, and
Dunbar (1991), cautioned that “[t]he portfolio assessment literature is replete with
assumptions and expectations about the nature and implications of portfolio assessment,
but those assumptions and expectations are rarely theoretically grounded in empirical
investigations of the situated practices of portfolio assessment in classrooms” (p. 6).

The goal of the present study is to offer a comprehensive account of the design,

implementation, and effectiveness of a portfolio within the framework of a

communicative second-year German language classroom at an American four-year
college, using a qualitative case study approach. No research has been conducted that has
looked specifically at the inclusion of portfolios in the German-as-a-foreign-language
classroom. In addition, no studies have investigated the simultaneous implementation of
all four language skills (speaking, listening, reading, and writing) in a college-level
foreign language course. The results of the study provide evidence of student Ieaming
and teaching effectiveness. Portfolio assessment was incorporated fully into instruction,
addressing how portfolios provide valid measures of assessment as they move away from
the mere teaching of skills to an integrated communicative competence in context. The
proposed model is applicable to any foreign or second language college-level course, and
the insights into students’ perceptions and progress will prove useful to language
educators of all fields and levels as they provide important information on how
instructional practices can be further improved. .

The effectiveness of this type of assessment is based on the teacher’s and the
students’ perceptions, which were gathered by means of several data sources. Darling-
Hammond and Ancess (1996) stated that self-reflection and evaluation will enable
teachers to evaluate their instruction critically and to use portfolio information to make
sound instructional decisions. Similarly, students’ self-reflection and evaluation will
enable them to recognize their own progress and their strengths and weaknesses.

In qualitative research, hypotheses generally emerge from the data. The following
hypotheses, which were informed by the above outlined portfolio and assessment
literature, served as heuristics at the outset of the study. The advantages and

disadvantages of alternative assessment in general and portfolio assessment in particular

(especially as outlined by Brown and Hudson [1998] and Padilla et a1. [1996]) built the
basis on which the following heuristics were developed:

The students will prefer portfolio assessment to traditional testing methods for the
following reasons:

(1) Portfolios do not simply test knowledge but rather highlight individual
progress.

(2) All four language skills are included in the portfolio assessment which will
cater to different learner types and their learning style preferences.

(3) The use of technology allows the students to complete assignments at their
own pace.

(4) The portfolio assignments will force students to review their own work which
will raise their awareness of certain aspects (e.g., errors) pertaining to the skill
in question.

(5) By working closely with peers, the students will become aware of errors and
will be able to correct them in the future.

The last hypothesis emerged from recent research in the field of second language
writing that has advocated the implementation of peer review as an important aspect in
assessing growth of students’ writing skills. In their 1997 study, McGroarty and Zhu
showed the positive effect group work, especially peer revision, had on students’ writing
and language acquisition in general, because students engaged in the negotiation of
meaning which offered deeper insights into their own writing process. Similarly,
Goldstein and Conrad (1990) found a positive relationship between negotiation and

successful revision. Practicing peer review with the students prior to the first assignment

10

is an irreplaceable aspect of effective and useful peer review. Berg (1999) and Ferris
(2003) stated that it is crucial to give the students precise guidelines and training for peer
revision sessions to prove valuable. Research also promotes active teacher intervention
during the writing process as an important tool for affecting students’ writing (Hairston,
1984; Susser, 1994). This can be accomplished by monitoring students’ activity and by
providing suggestions during peer revision and, more importantly, by commenting
extensively on students’ drafis.

In the following chapter, I will discuss the context and the methodology of the present
study. This includes a detailed description of the research paradigm and of the
department, the course, and the participants of the study, which is followed by an outline
of the data collection and analyses. Chapter 3 comprises the main part of this thesis, the
implementation of the portfolio into the classroom practice. In Chapter 4, I will provide
and discuss the results of the analyzed data according to the four language skills. Also,
the students’, the teacher’s, and the supervising professor’s perceptions and evaluations
are reported, highlighting the effectiveness of portfolio assessment in this particular
classroom. Chapter 5 concludes my research and summarizes limitations, implications,

and future directions.

11

CHAPTER 2

CONTEXT AND METHODOLOGY

The primary criterion for designing a research study is the appropriateness of the
methodology (Patton, 2002). For the present study, a qualitative research paradigm was
selected. The case study guidelines put forth by TESOL formed the basis of the study
design. Following these guidelines, the study seeks to identify important patterns and
themes in the data and to explain the findings in a descriptive, interpretive, and inductive
manner. The analytic process inherent in interpretive research involves repeated testing
and revision of preliminary assertions against the entire body of data (Moss et al., 1992)
until those assertions can account for all the data presented. This follows the tradition of
case studies in the field of education where emphasis is placed on “issues such as
learners’ and teachers’ identities, skill development and its consequences for learners,
teachers’ professional development experiences, and the implementation of language
policies” (“TESOL,” 2005). Providing sufficient detail and contextualization are crucial
elements in qualitative research (F raenkel & Wallen, 2003). This chapter attempts to do
that by describing the context and the methodology used for this study in detail.
Addressing the issues of validity and credibility of conclusions, the study design involved
persistent observation over an extended period of time, triangulation across data sources,
and the use of transparent analytic methods. These issues will be discussed in more detail
in Sections 2.2 and 2.3. Due to the small sample size, generalizations or inferences can
not and should not be drawn, but rather a model and principles are proposed that other

researchers should consider when undertaking similar projects.

12

2.1 Setting up the Context
This section provides background information about the department and the course in

which the study was conducted as well as the participants.

2.1.1 The Department
The German Department at Michigan State University (MSU) is home to one of the
largest undergraduate German programs in the nation in terms of the ratio of
undergraduate majors to tenure stream faculty.l It has more German majors than most of
the premier German programs in the Big Ten; in the academic year 2003/04, 380 students
were enrolled in first-year language classes and 273 students in second-year language
classes (“MSU Schedule,” 2005) which represent steadily increasing numbers.2

The Department offers a “strong comprehensive undergraduate curriculum in German
[that] focuses on language [sic] literature and culture” (“MSU German,” 2005). F irst-
and second-year language classes follow an integrated communicative approach and
focus on German language, civilization, and culture for beginning students and on the
development of all language skills with an emphasis on speaking for intermediate-level
students. These courses are usually taught by Teaching Assistants (TAs) who are

graduate students in the program.

 

I Personal communication with Professor Thomas Lovik, coordinator of first- and second-year German
language programs at MSU (3/10/05).

This trend follows the national numbers. As Welles (2002) reports, enrollments in German at four-year
colleges have steadily increased across the nation since 1998, with German being ranked third after Spanish -
and French.

13

Using portfolios as an assessment tool has never been part of any of the departmental
language courses, but the program coordinators were open to and supportive of the idea

and let the teacher, who is also the researcher3, design the course on her own.

2.1.2 The Course
Michigan State University follows a semester-based academic year with two semesters of
approximately fifteen weeks each.’ The summer is divided into two sessions of
approximately seven weeks each.5 German 201 (GRM 201) is the first half of a two-part
intermediate second-year language course and is usually offered with five concurrent
sessions in the fall semester, one session in the spring semester, and one session during
the first half of the summer. Its content focuses on “[r]eading, viewing, and discussion of
a broad range of cultural materials from the German-speaking world” (“GRM 201,”
2005), as stated in the online course description. The textbook used at MSU is Moeller,
Liedhof, Adolph, and Mabee’s Kaleidoskop (2002) and GRM 20] covers chapters 1-5.
As stated in the instructor’s introduction, this book
creates a learner-centered classroom with activities that lend themselves to
cooperative learning. The objectives of the texts, vocabulary study, activities,
and grammar presentations are (l) to increase students’ ability to function in
German and (2) to increase students’ understanding and appreciation of German
culture, opening up for them new avenues of thought, experiences, and views of
life. (p. IAE 15)

The book emphasizes a four-skill development and contains many authentic texts,

however, past teaching experiences showed that the texts included in the textbook are not

 

3 Implications of this constellation are discussed later in Section 5.1.

The fall semester runs from late August to mid—December, the spring semester begins in January and ends
in early May.

The first session begins in mid-May and ends early in July, the second session runs from early July to late
August.

14

sufficient for the students to complete the course with intermediate reading knowledge.
This is mainly because the texts do not contain longer reading samples which the students
are expected to read in higher-level classes. Therefore, GRM 201 also covers a short
novel and other authentic texts in addition to the materials presented in the regular
textbook. In the semester during which this study was conducted, Elvis in KoIn (Felix &
Theo, 1999) was read. The drawback of Elvis in Koln is that it is a short novel
specifically designed for German-as-a—foreign-language classrooms and therefore it is not
authentic material. The content of the short novel, however, presents a subject matter the
students can easily relate to and find interesting and that is truly representative of German
culture. This short novel has been used for a number of years in the department and has
received positive feedback from both instructors and students.

The materials used in this course, including the portfolio, encompass three
characteristics that are crucial for a communicative approach to foreign language
teaching: The materials are authentic and address students’ interests, they stress the use of
learning strategies that are transferable to other learning areas, and they stimulate the use
of the target language (Brinton, Snow, & Wesche, 1989; Nunan, 1991; Richards &
Rodgers, 2001 ).

The present study was conducted during the first session of the summer semester
2004.‘5 The class met four times a week (Monday, Tuesday, Thursday, Friday) from
10:20 a.m.-12:10 p.m. (including a 10 minute break half way through) for a total of six
and a half weeks (May 17-July 1); the three final days were exam days. The course

objectives as listed on the student syllabus were:

 

6 1n the following, this session will be referred to as “semester,” even though, strictly speaking, it was not a
semester.

15

(1) To improve your spoken and written communication in German.

(2) To improve your reading and listening abilities by familiarizing you with a
wide range of spoken and written text types, e. g. short stories, newspaper
articles, interviews, webpages.

(3) To expand your active and recognition vocabulary.

(4) To develop increased understanding of the German-speaking cultures.
Course requirements included (1) regular attendance, class participation, and preparation
of homework assignments; (2) completion of regular reading, writing, listening, speaking,
and grammar assignments; (3) written unit tests, mid-semester and final oral exam, and
portfolio; and (4) completion of four written assignments. The portfolio comprised 25%
of the final grade. Four traditional paper-based tests were given throughout the course,
one after each of the first four chapters, mainly testing textbook materials. These tests
comprised 20% of the final grade. The students had to write four essays including drafts
and peer review, which made up 10 % of their final grades. Attendance, homework, and
the oral midterm counted for 10% respectively and the final oral exam comprised 15% of
the students’ grades.

Technology, especially the lntemet, was an integral part of this course. The German
Department at MSU owns 33 wireless iBook laptop computers7 which were used
throughout this course. All four skills were practiced using the Internet in addition to
regular exposure in the classroom. Most of the assignments were posted online, using
MSU’s ANGEL interface, and some of the assignments included active use of the

Internet inside and outside of the classroom. Time spent on portfolio assignments that

had to be completed online could be monitored by using ANGEL, which allowed the

 

7 These wireless laptops were obtained as part of an MSU grant project by two former Ph.D. students, Cate
Brubaker and Elizabeth Priester, who studied the implementation of lntemet technology in the second-year
German language classroom. Their findings are unpublished to date.

16

teacher a deeper insight into the efficiency of the assignments and led to refinements in

scope and difficulty of certain assignments.

2.1.3 The Participants

The Students. A total of eleven students participated in the study; these eleven
students comprised the entire student body enrolled in the course. Eight of them were
males and three of them were females. Two of the students did not complete the part of
the pre-questionnaire regarding their personal information; therefore, the following
summary contains only the information of nine of the students.

Despite the small number of students participating in the study, they represent a
diverse group of students, including two sophomores, three juniors, and four seniors. The
students’ overall grade point averages (GPA) ranged from 2.0 to 4.0. Five students
(56%) had a GPA of 3.4-4.0. This high number of excellent students might be
attributable to the fact that summer German language courses at MSU are a condensed
and more intensive version of the equivalent courses offered throughout regular
semesters.8 These summer courses require a lot of focus, drive, and dedication as they
cover the materials taught over the course of a regular semester (15 weeks, 50 minutes 4
times a week) in 6.5 weeks (100 minutes 4 times a week). The fact that so many
excellent students were enrolled in the class might have attributed to the positive
responses by the students and their willingness to participate in a rather work intensive

portfolio assignment.

 

8 See also Section 2.1.2 above.

17

All nine students who completed the part on personal information on the pre-
questionnaire had had previous German courses. Three of the students had had between
two to four years of German during high school and eight of the students had taken GRM
101 and 102 at MSU. Other languages studied by the participants included French, Latin,
Russian, and American Sign Language.

Five of the students had been to Germany before. One student had lived there for two
years while he went to kindergarten, and the other four students visited family members
or traveled for a length of four days to two weeks. One of these five students had also
been to Austria while in Europe.

When asked about their rationale of taking GRM 201, nine students out of all eleven
indicated that it was a degree requirement, but four of them also stated that personal
motives had led them to enroll in this class. The following are excerpts of the students’
pre-questionnaires9:

1. My sister studied German and after visiting her in Germany I have become
interested in the language and culture. I would like to return to Germany for
an extended period of time. (S4)

2. Like to have a semi-working knowledge of the larger world and other
cultures. Also a useful skill or tool to travel and business. (SS)

3. I like speaking and being able to speak to people in languages other than
English. (S9)

4. Also for personal interest of Ieaming German. (810)

The Teacher. Apart from the students, the teacher, who was also the researcher,
played an instrumental role in this study. '0 I attended a German university from which I

obtained the equivalents to American B.A. degrees (Zwischenprz‘tfung) in German and

English language and literature studies. I also received additional certifications in

 

9 The students are indicated by the letter S for student and a number in parentheses. These numbers were
assigned at random. This format will be used in the following to identify the students.

'0 One of the major limitations of the study is that the teacher was also the researcher. See also Section 5.1.

18

German as a foreign language and in pedagogy. While attending the university, I worked
as an assistant in the German as a foreign language department and mentored freshmen in
the English department. Upon completion of the Zwischenpritfimgen, I participated in a
study abroad program with the German Department at Michigan State University, where
I was a Teaching Assistant for one academic year. I decided to extend my stay for an
additional semester and finish my German M.A. degree at MSU, while still teaching in
the German language program. During that semester, I enrolled in the doctoral program
in German at MSU. After completing the M.A. in German, I enrolled for a second M.A.
in Teaching English to Speakers of Other Languages (TESOL).

My interest in investigating portfolio assessment has been sparked by the coursework
I completed within the M.A. TESOL Program. Based on my academic background as a
researcher and teacher, researching classroom practices and improving assessment
methods have always been areas of particular interest to me. In addition, I have always
felt that students’ views and perceptions of classroom practices and assessment methods
are not adequately taken into account when designing courses, which led to the topic of

the present study.

2.2 Data Collection
One aspect of a rigorous qualitative study is data triangulation (i.e., the collection of data
from multiple sources and using multiple methods to ensure their validity). Therefore, I
collected a variety of data from many different sources over the course of the semester.

The data were collected in the following order:

19

A self-assessment on language skills was given to all participants on the first
day of class.

A questionnaire with specific questions pertaining to portfolios was
distributed during the first week.

The supervising professor observed the class twice and provided feedback.

A final self-assessment on language was given to all participants at the end of
the semester.

A questionnaire with specific questions pertaining to the portfolio experience
was given to all participants at the end of the semester.

The students were interviewed upon completion of the course; these
interviews were tape-recorded.

The actual portfolios were collected at the end of the course; the part of the
portfolio that is most crucial for the data collection and analysis is the
reflective essay in which the students had to include reasons for selecting
certain pieces of their work, comments on the use of technology in the course,

and their perceptions of their improvement.ll

The following subsections elaborate on what kinds of data were collected, when, and

2.2.1 Student Pre-Self—Assessment

On the first day of class, a self-assessment on language skills was given to all students

(see Appendix A), in which they were asked to assess their behavior in previous German

 

H Chapter 3 will elaborate on all requirements for the portfolio.

20

courses taken. This self-assessment was informed by several online questionnaires'2 and
contained mostly multiple choice items. It was adjusted to the purpose of the present
study and consisted of three major sets of questions. The first set of questions (items 1-6)
dealt with preparation for and behavior in class. The second set of questions (items 7—9)
focused on the use of and exposure to the German language outside of class. The third
set of items (IO-l 3) addressed the four skills (speaking, listening, reading, and writing)
and was sub-divided into ranking them according to their perceived difficulty and into
questions about Ieaming strategies related to these four skills. This self-assessment was
collected by the supervising professor and stored in her office until completion of the
course to ensure that the teacher would not be influenced by the students’ answers prior

to submitting final grades.

2. 2. 2 Pre-Questionnaire

During the first week of instruction, a questionnaire with specific questions pertaining to
portfolios was distributed (see Appendix B). The questions were a mixture of 7-point
Likert Scale rankings”, open-ended questions, and multiple choice items and contained
four major sets of questions. The first set (items 1-3) addressed existing knowledge
about and previous exposure to portfolios as well as students’ perception of traditional
assessment methods. Set two (item 4) was pertaining to students’ perceived proficiency
in the four language skills. The third set (items 5-6) dealt with general questions on

assessment methods and procedures. The final set of questions (items 7-12) concerned

 

'2 NCLRC (19973) for question set 1; NCLRC (1997c) for item 11; Ministry of Education, Israel (1998)
for item 12; and NCLRC (1997d) for item l3.

'3 For all scales used, 1 represented the lower/negative end and 7 the higher/positive end, for example 1 =
strongly dislike/not proficient/leamed less and 7 = strongly like/very proficient/learned more.

21

personal information. The results of this last section were already reported in Section

2.1.3.

2.2.3 Classroom Observations

The supervising professor observed the class twice, once at the beginning of the course
during week two (May 27) and once toward the end of the course during week six (June
22) and provided feedback on the class as a whole and the teacher’s teaching style and
methods.14 The written feedback contained space for the teacher to respond to questions
or comments the professor had about the class. The objective behind these observations
was to make the teacher aware of her teaching style and to offer her an outsider’s
perspective on how the students completed tasks relevant to the portfolio. This allowed
the teacher to self-reflect on her teaching practices and the implementation of the

portfolio assessment.

2. 2. 4 Student Post-Self-Assessment

This self-assessment on language was administered at the end of the semester and was
identical to the pre-self-assessment (Appendix A) with the only difference that the
students were asked to assess their behavior regarding GRM 201, the course they had just

completed.

 

'4 See Appendix C for the observation form.

22

2. 2.5 Post—Questionnaire

All participants completed a questionnaire with specific items pertaining to the portfolio
experience at the end of the semester (Appendix D). This questionnaire contained mainly
7-point Likert Scale rankings and a few open-ended questions and was divided into three
major sets of questions. Set one (items 1-4) dealt with the portfolio experience in general
and in particular in comparison with traditional testing methods. The second set (items 5-
6) addressed two specific aspects of the portfolio assessment: students’ active
involvement in their own assessment and peer review. The final Section (items 7-8)
concerned students’ perceived proficiency in the four language skills and asked for any

additional thoughts or comments on assessment methods and procedures.

2.2.6 Interviews

On the last day of class, the students turned in their portfolios and were individually
interviewed in English by the teacher for approximately ten minutes each. ‘5 These
interviews were tape-recorded and transcribed. '6 The interview addressed most issues
covered by the post-questionnaire and the reflective essay that had to be included as part
of the portfolio, however, the teacher could elicit more explicit and detailed information
from the students by broaching certain aspects again, especially when asking for specific

reasons for why a certain answer had been given.

 

'5 See Appendix B for an outline of the interview. questions.
6 For a complete transcription of all interviews, contact the teacher.

23

2. 2. 7 The Portfolio

The students were made aware on the first day of class that they had to compile a
portfolio for this course, which comprised 25% of their final grade. All assignments
included in the portfolio were regular homework assignments, apart from the reflective
essay, in which the students had to include reasons for selecting certain pieces of their
work, comments on the use of technology in the course, and their perceptions of their
improvement. The portfolios were collected on the last day of class. Chapter 3 will
elaborate on all requirements for the portfolio and additional assignments that were not
directly included in the portfolio but affected students’ Ieaming and progress. In
addition, Chapter 3 will examine the design and implementation of portfolio assessment

in a second-year German language classroom.

2.3 Data Analyses
The data analyses included evaluations of the self-assessments, the questionnaires and the
classroom observations, detailed examination of all parts of the portfolios — particularly
the reflective essay —, and transcriptions and analyses of the interviews. The self-
assessments, questionnaires, interviews, and applicable aspects of the portfolio (i.e., the
reflective essay) were compared within and between participants. The data were checked
to confirm that the hypotheses given in Chapter 1 hold true and will be reported
following a process from broad to more focused aspects within each skill. Specifically, I
looked for similarities and differences in students’ responses to the portfolio experience.
Positive and negative reactions to portfolio assessment were considered, and I expected

to find patterns or potential trends. The remainder of this thesis will show how students’

24

perceptions can be translated into more effective teaching practices (both instructional
and assessment practices) in the future. Also, I hope to disprove some of the
disadvantages of portfolio assessment mentioned in recent literature, in particular the
issue of validity (Brown & Hudson, 1998) pointed out in Chapter 1. Another goal of my
study is to demonstrate how portfolios can enhance student learning and how they are
effective assessment measures not only relative to the impact they have on the students
participating in this study but also more generally by comparing the implemented

portfolio to the framework outlined in the portfolio literature.

25

CHAPTER 3

THE PORTFOLIO AND ITS IMPLEMENTATION

The portfolio and assessment literature shaped the course design and the portfolio
implementation to a great extend. As pointed out in Chapter 1, one of the underlying
characteristics of portfolios is that they include multiple and diverse forms of students’
work which are taken at different stages during the semester to show students’ progress
and learning over time. As will be shown in this chapter, at least two assignments per
skill (writing, reading, speaking, and listening) were included in the final portfolio. The
characteristics of communicative language classrooms commonly mentioned in the
literature (i.e., authentic and interesting materials, emphasis on learning strategies, and
use of the target language)'7 built the underlying tenet of the design of both the course
and the portfolio.

It is of utmost importance for the students to be aware not only of the requirements
and the design of the portfolio but also of its purpose for it to prove beneficial and to
result in better learning. At the beginning of the course, the teacher provided a
preliminary information sheet about the portfolio assessment (Appendix F). This sheet
laid out the teacher’s plan for eleven assignments that could be included in the final
portfolio. Five of the assignments were predetermined by the teacher and covered
speaking, listening, and a reflective essay; the remaining six assignments could be
selected by the students out of a pool of similar assignments]8 and covered writing,

reading, grammar, and a unit test including corrections. Also, the teacher asked

 

'7 For more detail, see Brinton, Snow, & Wesche (1989), Nunan (1991 ), and Richards & Rodgers (2001).

'8 For example, the students had to write four essays throughout the course of the semester and they could
choose the one they wanted to include in their portfolio.

26

specifically for students’ input regarding the assignments to be included as well as the
grading scales to be used to assess each item and their weighting. These aspects were
discussed several times in class at different points throughout the course and the teacher
also asked for feedback via email, but, unfortunately, the teacher received little feedback
from the students regarding any of these issues. The only proposed change by the
students was to drop assignment number 10, “One grammar summary including
exercises,” because the students felt that the homework schedule had not sufficiently
addressed grammar summaries. Each student was in charge of only one grammar
presentation and the resulting lack of choice for this portfolio piece was perceived as
limiting the students in their ability to portray progress. As a result, the teacher dropped
this assignment.

The weighting and grading criteria for each assignment were discussed with the
students during class and the teacher drafied a preliminary document that contained the
few suggestions the students had made19 as well as her own ideas, which were based on
the National Standards for Foreign Language Education and the American Council on the
Teaching of Foreign Languages Proficiency Guidelines.20 Additional suggestions from
the students were encouraged by the teacher, however, not received. The final outline of
elements to be included in the portfolio, organized according to the four skills, as well as
the weighting of the elements and the grading scales used to assess students’ performance

will be discussed in the following.”

 

'9 These suggestions were mostly on holistic versus analytic grading scales. When asked for their
preference, the students felt that an analytic grading would be preferable and fairer for speaking and writing
assignments. Reading and listening assignments could be graded holistically.

20 See Section 3.6.
2] See Appendix G for the final document that was distributed to the students.

27

For all four skills, there were additional assignments throughout the course that the
students had to complete as part of their regular homework assignments, providing a wide
variety of different tasks that would cater to all different types of learners. Even though
these additional assignments developing all four skills were not explicitly part of the
portfolio, they still had an impact on the students’ progress and are therefore also
explained in the following sections.

The final portfolio had to include ten assignments: Five elements predetermined by
the teacher including two speaking and two listening assignments as well as a reflective
essay on the portfolio experience, and five elements selected by the students covering two
reading and two writing assignments as well as one unit test with detailed corrections.22
Apart from these ten elements, the grading of the portfolio also took the layout and the

inclusion of all assignments into consideration. Appendix H is an abbreviated version of

the assignment schedule the students received, highlighting the portfolio assignments.23

3.1 Writing
Two of the assignments that could be selected by the students covered their writing skills.
The students had to include one of three chat sessions containing corrections and one of
four essays including all drafts and the peer review sheet. The students were encouraged
to select one piece of their work from the beginning of the course and one piece from the

end of the course to show their progress in writing.

 

22 It is overly simplistic to define each assignment as exclusively practicing one skill, but for reporting
urposes it allows a coherent structure.

3 All assignments out of the book have been deleted. The original assignment and homework schedule
contained many reminders about each assignment, and all due dates and multiple reminders were also
posted in the calendar on ANGEL. For the original assignment and homework schedule, contact the
teacher.

28

For the chat sessions, students were required to either chat with their classmates by
using a chat room the teacher had set up on ANGEL or by using a different engine such
as AIM, or by chatting with anyone who speaks German such as friends, relatives, or
even strangers. There was no pre-specified topic for the chat sessions because the teacher
wanted to give the students the opportunity to engage in authentic communication; a pre-
specified t0pic might have limited students’ creativity and spontaneity. The chat log
containing at least fifieen turns24 by each participant had to be turned in25 and was
reviewed by the teacher. The teacher provided written feedback on the types of errors
and the students had to correct them. A document explaining the abbreviations used by
the teacher was posted online (Appendix 1).

Throughout the course, the students had to write four essays on pre-specified topics.
Each essay contained a different grammar focus that was covered in the book at the time.

Table 1 presents an overview of the four essay topics, including their grammar foci.

Table 1
Essay Topics Overview

 

Topic Grammar Focus

 

l “A weekend of your dreams” verb forms

 

2 “Postcard from East Lansing” past tense

 

3 “Vacation in Europe” word order: time, manner, place

 

 

4 “Fairy Tale” nominative and accusative cases
choose a tense (remember to be consistent)

 

 

 

Note. This table presents the topics and the grammar foci of the four essays the students had to write over
the course of the semester.

 

24 A turn was defined as a complete sentence containing a noun and a verb.
25 Or it was accessed by the teacher in case the students used the ANGEL chat room.

29

 

The students received the essay topics and some more detailed suggestions on what to
include as part of their homework schedule on the first day of class. The topics were
spelled out in German, additional information on formatting and length and the grammar
foci were provided in English.26

For all four essays, the students had to engage in peer review, the implementation of
which has been advocated by recent research, as was pointed out in Chapter 1. Prior to
the first essay assignment, the teacher practiced peer review by going over an example in
class. The teacher created a document with common students’ mistakes based on student
essays from previous GRM 20] classes27 and went through that essay while referring to a
peer feedback form (Appendix K). The class was asked to analyze the example essay and
to answer all questions on the peer feedback form. The peer review forms the students
completed to give each other feedback on their four essays were modeled after the one
used for practice in class and were adjusted according to the topic and the grammar focus
of each assignment.28

For each of the four essays, the teacher allotted time for peer review during class and
encouraged the students to also meet outside of class to provide each other with more
detailed feedback. Providing feedback to a peer, which could be monitored through the
inclusion of the peer review form when turning in the final draft, and implementing the

peer’s suggestions in the final draft were part of each student’s essay grade. The peer

 

26 See Appendix J for the exact information given to the students.

The examples included common mistakes such as capitalization, punctuation, subject verb agreement,
tenses, modals, word order, relative clauses, use of articles, adjectives and prepositions, and case markings.
The teacher also posted a document containing rules to most common mistakes on ANGEL and kept
adding explanations to problems that were recurring in students’ writing throughout the semester.

For all peer review sheets, contact the teacher.

30

groups were assigned by the teacher.29 By allowing the students to engage in peer review
during class, the teacher could function as an additional source for help in case of
problems and could monitor the students’ activity. Research promotes active teacher
intervention during the writing process as an important tool for affecting students’
writing. Therefore, the teacher not only provided suggestions during the stage of peer
review but also commented extensively on the first draft of essays 2-4 by using Word’s
comment function.30 The same abbreviations as used for the chat logs were employed.
Each final draft was commented on extensively by the teacher, prOviding specific
information on each of the five assessment sections for writing.31

Other writing assignments not included in the portfolio were a short autobiography at
the beginning of the term, a timed writing in week 5, and a never-ending story the entire
class wrote together which was due during week 6. For the autobiography, the students
were asked to write ten sentences about themselves. This helped the teacher in assessing
each student’s writing skills at the outset of the semester, which would serve as one
indication against which individual progress could be measured.

The timed writing was completed in class and consisted of a picture story the students
had to retell in writing. Chapter 4 in the textbook introduced the students to the popular
German comic strips by Erich Ohser called “Vater und Sohn” [Father and Son]. One
activity in the textbook had the students write out a story to such a comic strip. For the
timed writing, the students had to log on to a webpage (Siidverlag, “Vater und Sohn”)

which they could easily access through ANGEL, where they could choose one of four

 

29 See Section 4.1 on the grouping of peers.

30 Due to time constraints during the first week of the course, the teacher did not provide feedback on the
draft of the first essay.

3' See Section 3.6 for detailed information on the rubrics.

31

different comic strips by Ohser. They were instructed to describe one story in as much
detail as possible and to write at least one sentence per picture without using a
dictionary.32 They were given ten minutes to complete this task and had to email their
story to the teacher.

The third additional writing activity was a never-ending story. One topic of chapter 4
in the textbook is fairy tales and the students had to work together as a class to create
their own fairy tale. The teacher linked a never-ending story template33 to ANGEL and
began the story with the words “Es war einmal vor langer langer Zeit. . .” [Once upon a
time. . .]. The students were instructed to add at least six entries to the story, each entry
had to consist of at least two complete sentences and they were not allowed to submit
entries consecutively. This last aspect added to the interactive nature of the assignment
and ensured that the students read what their peers wrote.

All writing assignments addressed different aspects of writing and catered to different

types of learners and writers.

3.2 Reading
Apart from the two writing assignments that could be selected by the students, the
students had a choice when including two of their works displaying their reading skills.
One was a written summary of one of the nine chapters of the novel Elvis in Koln and the
other one was one of five lntemet worksheets. The grading of these assignments focused
exclusively on the accuracy, synthesis, and comprehension of the information provided

by the texts. Once again, the students were encouraged to select one piece of their work

 

32 The comic strips contained between four to six pictures each.
33 The template is accessible free of charge at www.cgispy.com.

32

from the beginning of the course and one piece toward the end of the course to show their
progress in reading comprehension.34

Most of the novel Elvis in Koln was read in class. The teacher implemented different
types of reading activities such as reading out loud, reading in small groups, reading with
assigned roles, silent reading, reading for the main idea, or reading for details to cater to
different learner types and to practice different reading skills. To ensure students’
comprehension of the text and to give them the opportunity to practice their oral skills,
the students had to present skits acting out the content of a chapter.35 Content-based
questions were also discussed in class, and the novel itself includes several activities the
students had to complete. For the assignment that was to be included in the portfolio, the
students were asked to select one of the written chapter summaries they had completed
throughout the semester.

The topics for the lntemet activities were selected to supplement the contents of each
of the five textbook chapters that were covered and to provide authentic task-based
reading opportunities the students could relate to and might encounter when abroad. For
each lntemet activity, the students had to complete a worksheet that contained all
directions, questions, and tasks in German, as well as the link to the specific webpage.
Also, each worksheet contained at least one question that went beyond the information
found on each website, namely providing reasons for certain choices made. Table 2

provides an outline of the topics of the five lntemet activities, including the tasks the

students had to complete.36

 

34 It was, however, difficult to compare these two reading assignments that were rather different in format.

35 These role plays were also practice for the final oral exam in which the students had to engage in a
conversation on one of three pre-specified topics in pairs.
36 See Appendix L for one of the worksheets (topic 3). For all worksheets, contact the teacher.

33

Table 2
Internet Activities Overview

 

Topic

Tasks

 

1 Berlin

select a tourist sight and describe it

provide information on location, admission, hours,
historical importance

provide reasons for why (not) you would visit your sight

 

2 Movie Theater

select a city, a theater, and a movie you don’t know
provide information on the movie’s content, actors,
length, rating

select a day and a time

provide information on seating and pricing

provide reasons for all your choices

 

3 A Visit to Cologne

select a beer garden and your order

provide information on hours, capacity, menu pricing
provide public transportation information on how to get
there (connections, transfers, length, pricing)

select a club to go to afterwards

provide information on type of music, attractions,
admission

provide reasons for all your choices

 

4 German Fairy Tales

select a fairy tale you don’t know

provide information on characters, content, motifs
select one of the illustrations for your fairy tale and
describe it in detail

provide reasons for all your choices

 

 

5 German Hit Singles

 

 

provide information on the number one hit (title, artist,
previous ranking)

provide information on hits that had risen or fallen and
on newcomers

provide information on the number of American and
German titles

provide reasons for why (not) you would buy certain
titles

submit your three top favorite titles online

 

Note. This table presents the topics and tasks of the five lntemet activities the students had to complete over

the course of the semester.

34

 

The students had to work with a partner to ensure they would discuss their decisions and
create output in the target language. Each lntemet link was spelled out on the worksheet
as well as posted on ANGEL and the teacher navigated through each webpage first and
modeled what the students had to do. The teacher emphasized the fact that it was not
necessary for the students to understand every single word but to read for the ideas
needed to complete the worksheet.

Other reading assignments that were not part of the portfolio included multiple
activities from the textbook. Each chapter of the textbook features four to six authentic
texts37 including a plethora of text types such as autobiographies, cartoons, picture
stories, interviews, poems, charts, scientific investigations, newspaper articles, and many
others. The introduction of the student textbook explains the rationale behind using
authentic texts and introduces students to reading strategies (activating existing
knowledge, extensive and intensive reading). Each text is accompanied by pre- and post-
reading activities, many of which were given as regular homework assignments or were
completed in class. The post-reading activities that were assigned as homework included
exercises where students had to synthesize the text, provide specific answers, correct
statements, or match information. Some of the homework practiced both reading and
writing in that it asked the students to think beyond the text and to write about their own
opinion or experience.

A basic prerequisite for both reading and writing (and speaking and listening) is vast
vocabulary knowledge, and the expansion of students’ active and recognition vocabulary

was also one of the course objectives. The textbook is interspersed with word lists and

 

37 About half of the texts in each chapter are covered in class.

35

vocabulary exercises that offer ample practice opportunities in context. A few of these

vocabulary exercises were also assigned as homework or completed in class.

3.3 Speaking

As was mentioned in Section 2.1, GRM 201 follows an integrated communicative
approach and places heavy emphasis on spoken communication. Therefore, speaking
assignments made up the largest portion of the portfolio, both in regards to number of
assignments to be included and in their weight compared to the tasks covering the other
skills. Two of the five predetermined assignments focused on speaking. One was a set of
three picture description tasks and the other was an interview with a native speaker.
Since these assignments were predetermined by the teacher, it was ensured that they
represented different times throughout the semester, which hopefully also represented
different developmental stages of the students, and they could easily be compared to
reveal each student’s progress.

The picture descriptions consisted of a total of three picture stories. Table 3 provides
a brief overview of the three stories that were used for the purpose of the portfolio. These
three picture stories were chosen because they are comparable in many aspects. All of
them are appropriate for an intermediate-level German course. The black-and-white
pictures contain many details which enables students of varying proficiency levels to
focus on different aspects depending on their level. The topics of the picture stories
describe scenarios that are very common and students should be able to use their existing

vocabulary knowledge to describe each picture.38

 

38 See Appendix M for the scenarios described in each of the three picture stories.

36

Table 3
Picture Stories Overview

 

 

 

 

 

Title Source Number of
pictures
1 Ausflug Composition Through Pictures 6
[Trip] by J .B. Heaton
2 Einladung Around the World: Pictures for Practice, Book 2 8
[Invitation] by M. Fuchs, M. Fletcher, D. Birt
3 Joggen Around the World: Pictures for Practice, Book 2 8
[Jogging] by M. Fuchs, M. Fletcher, D. Birt

 

 

 

 

Note. This table presents information on the three picture stories used for one of the two predetermined
speaking assignments. The titles in this table were the ones given by the teacher and not the original picture
story titles.

The stories were slightly altered; since they were taken from non-German sources, they
contained a few words in English. In the case of story 1, the English words were deleted
before the story was posted as a JPG file on ANGEL. For the stories by Fuchs et al., the
English words were digitally replaced by their German translation and then posted online.
For the assignment, the students were randomly put into three groups. Group 1
consisted of students 1, 4, 6, 8, and 9, group 2 consisted of students 2, 3, 5, and 7, and
group 3 consisted of students 10 and 11.39 Each group had access to one different story at
a time. Table 4 describes the organization of this speaking assignment. As Table 4
shows, each group had access to the stories in a different order. The stories were posted
on ANGEL for one week at a time and the students needed a password to log on to their

story. They could download the story, print it out, or view it online.

 

39 The reason for the unequal number in the groups lies in the fact that these groups were assigned prior to
the first day of class and two students who had originally been enrolled dropped the course during week
one.

37

 

Table 4

Picture Description Task Organization

 

 

 

 

 

Picture Story Description 1 Description 2 Description 3
due May 27 due June 17 due June 25

1 (Trip) Group 3 Group 1 Group 2

2 (Invitation) Group 2 Group 3 Group 1

3 (Jogging) Group 1 Group 2 Group 3

 

 

 

 

Note. This table presents information on the organization of the picture description task, including due
dates and group distribution.

For the actual oral picture descriptions, the students used an online recording tool

called Audio Portfolios.40

Audio Portfolios is a tool that provides an environment for students to practice
speaking. The program runs in a web browser window. Students log in to their
own accounts and record themselves. When they are satisfied with their sound
files, they “share” them with the instructor. Shared files are accessible to the
instructor. All sound files are stored on the server, and are accessible only to the
student and the instructor. (Language Learning Center, FA Q, 2004)

Before the students used this tool for the first time, the teacher reviewed the webpage in

class and answered all questions. The students could complete the picture descriptions at

their own pace outside of class. The only prerequisite for this assignment was a computer

with an lntemet connection and a microphone. For those students who did not have the

necessary technological equipment at home, the language lab at MSU served as

alternative. Some of the students used different voice recording programs and turned in

their files on CD-Rom.

 

40 This tool has been developed for the Language Learning Center at Michigan State University by Dennie
Hoopingarner and is accessible at http://distancelearning.llc.msu.edu/audioportfolio/. It also supports video
recording, however, for the purpose of this study, only the voice recording function was used.

38

 

The students were encouraged not to use dictionaries but rather rely on their existing
vocabulary knowledge. Also, they were asked not to write out the story and read it. As
pointed out in the above quote, the students had the opportunity to listen to their
recordings and re-record their description as many times as they wished before they made
certain files available to the instructor. Audio Portfolios identifies the date and time
when a file has been posted, which allowed the instructor to monitor timely completion
of each description.

The second speaking assignment that had to be included in the final portfolio was an
interview with a native speaker on the topic “Education and Schooling in Germany.”
Prior to the actual interview, the students had to generate questions which they had to
email to the teacher for feedback. Also, they had to sign up for a 5 minute time slot for
June 1, the day the interviews were conducted. Two male native speakers of German and
one female near-native speaker of German volunteered as interviewees. They were asked
to answer the students’ questions naturally as if talking to another native speaker,
however, the teacher advised them to use more simple vocabulary rather than elaborate
terms the students would not understand.41 Also, they were encouraged to engage the
students in a conversation by asking them similar questions about the American
educational system rather than only answering the posed questions. These interviews
were video recorded and the digital files were only accessible to the teacher. To ensure
that the students would not be distracted or flustered by the presence of the teacher, the

teacher was absent during the recordings.

 

4' The two male speakers were not familiar with foreign language pedagogy and the teacher suspected their
answers would be too complicated had she not asked them to keep in mind that the interviewers were
language students.

39

The students had to submit a written summary including the questions they asked and
the answers given by the interviewees. Therefore, they were allowed to take notes during
the interview. In this respect, the assignment implemented speaking, listening and
writing skills.”

Other speaking tasks that were not part of the portfolio included daily activities the
students engaged in during class, such as group discussions about texts, problem-solving
partner activities, or mini-presentations. There was an oral midterm and an oral final
exam. For the midterm exam, the students had to prepare a five minute presentation on a
topic of their choice. The two prerequisites were that (l) the topic had to have something
to do with the German language and/or culture and (2) the students could not read their
presentation. They were allowed to use PowerPoint or bring in an index card with key
words. The students had to sign up with a partner for a 15 minute time slot. Each student
had five minutes to present, followed by a two-minute question session. The listening
student was required to ask at least three questions pertinent to his or her partner’s
presentation and the teacher followed up with some questions of her own. The students
had to submit a written summary on their partner’s presentation.43

The final oral exam followed the format outlined by the department. The students
had to sign up with a partner for a 15 minute time slot and arrive at the classroom 15
minutes prior to that time. There are two parts to the final oral exam: The first part is a
question-and-answer session. The students sit at desks across from each other. On each

desk is a paper containing five questions in German. Student A has odd numbered

questions, student B has even numbered questions. The students take turn asking each

 

42 See also Section 3.4.
43 See also Section 3.4.

40

other the questions and giving answers. This part is modeled after the daily warm-up
activity where the teacher starts out asking a student a question and after answering, that
student has to ask another student a question etc.

The second part of the exam is a role-play. For this, the students come in 15 minutes
ahead of time to prepare their scenarios. The students draw one of three scenarios which
are all extensions of what has been covered throughout the semester. For this course, the
three topics were (1) Vacation in Berlin, (2) East and West Germans, and (3) Families
and Relationships. Each scenario gave suggestions on what the students could address in

their role-play. Both exams were part of the regular course grade.

3.4 Listening
As was pointed out in the above section on speaking, several speaking and listening tasks
were overlapping. There were two sets of listening assignments that had to be included
in the final portfolio. The first of the two predetermined assignments consisted of the two
written summaries of (1) the interview with a native speaker and (2) the presentation of
the student’s partner during the oral midterm exam. The second set of listening
assignments included three listening comprehension worksheets that had to be completed
at various times throughout the semester. The last one of these worksheets formed the
final listening exam. Since these listening assignments were predetermined by the
teacher, it was ensured that they represented different times throughout the semester,
which hopefully also represented different developmental stages of the students, and

could therefore be easily compared to reveal each student’s progress.

41

Section 3.3 described the requirements for the first set of listening tasks, the written
summaries of the interview and the midterm. Table 5 presents information on the

listening comprehension worksheets, which comprised the second set of listening

 

 

 

 

 

assignments.
Table 5
Listening Comprehension Worksheets
Topic Source Questions types
Worksheet 1 “Paradebeispiel” Die Zeit - short answer (6)
due May 24 [Prime example] - matching (1)
- multiple choice (1)
Worksheet 2 “TKKG: Die Wette” Europa - short answer (7)
due June 18 [TKKGz The bet] - multiple choice (4)
Worksheet 3 Phone conversation Kaleidoskop - multiple choice (3)
due June 29 - short answer (3)
“Haustierfindung” Die Zeit - short answer (5)
[Finding a pet] - multiple choice (3)
- ranking (1)

 

 

 

 

Note. This table presents information on the content and organization of the listening comprehension
worksheets. The first column identifies when each worksheet was due, the second column lists the topics of
each listening passage, column three identifies the source of the listening passage, and the fourth column
provides information on question types. The numbers in parentheses refer to the number of items of each
question type on each worksheet.

As was pointed out in Chapter 1, multiple sources of information and a combination of
alternative and traditional assessment methods allow for better decision making. While
some of the question types selected for the listening comprehension worksheets are not
performance-based (i.e., multiple choice, matching, and ranking), these “selected-

response assessments” are most appropriate for measuring receptive skills, according to

Brown and Hudson (1998).

42

 

Two of the listening passages (“Paradebeispiel” and “Haustierfindung”) were taken
from the webpage Die Zeit, the German equivalent to the New York Times. The webpage
offered several of their articles in audio format, which made these listening passages
authentic.44 The selected files were taken from the category “Life” and were chosen
because of their content. “Paradebeispiel” — a pun in German meaning both “prime
example” and “example of a parade” - is a discussion about the various parades,
particularly the Love Parade, in Berlin and is 4: 15 minutes in length. The teacher
assumed that this topic would raise students’ interest and would represent something they
could relate to. The second passage, “Haustierfindung,” discussed various pets and their
advantages and disadvantages and is 2:53 minutes in length.45 The teacher thought that
the students would be interested in this topic and the semantic field of animals was
assumed to pose little problems. Both passages were articles that had originally been
written for the printed version of the newspaper and were read by the same male speaker.

The listening passage for the second worksheet was also an authentic text. It
consisted of the first 4:20 minutes of a popular teenage audiocassette produced by the
company Europa. The audio-play series TKKG, an acronym for the four main
characters, started in 1979 and features four teenage detectives; it is currently in its 144Lh
episode. The episode selected for the portfolio was number 65, released in 1991, entitled
“Sklaven fiir Wutawia” [Slaves for Wutawia]. This particular passage was selected
because the teacher assumed that it would be interesting to the students to be exposed to a

true German cultural artifact and because it was easy to identify all speakers without

 

44 . . . .
This servrce IS no longer available.

45 This file has been shortened from its original length of 4: 10 minutes because the last third of the passage
was extremely difficult and contained very complex sentences. Also it was part of the final exam and a
second listening text was covered.

43

having listened to any of the previous episodes. The beginning of the episode talks about
a bet two of the main characters are engaged in, hence the title of the worksheet. The
three authentic listening passages increased slightly in difficulty.

The fourth listening passage listed in the table was the first part of the final listening
exam and was taken from the test bank accompanying the textbook Kaleidoskop. It was a
phone conversation specifically created for the purposes of the textbook and had “music”
as its underlying topic.

Worksheets l and 2 were distributed in class a week before the assignment was due.
On the same day, the audio file was posted on ANGEL and was available until the due
date. Each worksheet contained an introductory paragraph in German, providing
background information on the source and the context of the file. This was followed by
detailed instructions which asked the students to listen to the file no more than four times
and which reminded them to listen globally rather than trying to understand every single
detail.46 Each worksheet contained a list of new vocabulary items in order of appearance
with their English translation. The questions also followed the chronological order of the
listening passage.

Worksheet 3 was completed in class as the final listening comprehension exam.
Unlike worksheets l and 2, it consisted of two sections, the first one of which was a
phone conversation and the second of which was another authentic text taken from Die
Zeit. The students were allowed to listen to the first passage twice and three times to the
second passage. The second section was structured exactly like worksheets l and 2

(including background information, instructions, and a vocabulary list), the first section

 

46 See Appendix N for worksheet 1. For all worksheets, contact the teacher.

44

consisted of a mixture of the materials taken from the instructor’s resource manual
accompanying the textbook.
The course did not include any additional listening comprehension tasks. The
syllabus encouraged students to practice their listening skills on their own:
The tapes/CD3 to accompany chapters 1-5 of Kaleidoskop are available for
purchase at the Language Learning Center in Old Horticulture. You can also
listen to the tapes in the lab. Although completion of the exercises in the lab
manual (included in the Workbook) is not required, your listening comprehension
will improve if you spend 20 minutes twice a week working with these exercises.
The teacher posted additional audio files from Die Zeit for the students to listen to on
ANGEL as well as links to German live stream radio and TV stations and other audio
files such as German fairy tales, for example, and highly encouraged the students to listen
to as much authentic language as possible. Also, videotapes with German TV shows47

were available to check out and during one half of a class session, the teacher showed a

dubbed episode of The Simpsons.

3.5 Additional Elements
Two additional elements had to be included in the final portfolio neither of which was
directly related to one of the four language skills. As part of the portfolio, the students
had to write a reflective essay, including reasons for selecting certain pieces of their
work, comments on the use of technology in the course, and their perceptions of their
improvement. They also had to grade their portfolio and provide reasons for their
assessment. This was the fifth element predetermined by the teacher and the only

assignment that was submitted in English. The fifth element the students could select

 

47 The contents of the videotapes truly represented the German TV program and included German news,
daily and weekly series, game shows, cartoons, children’s shows, dubbed American TV shows etc.

45

themselves was one of the unit tests, including detailed corrections focusing on
grammatical competence. When grading the unit tests, the teacher had only marked
errors but not corrected them, using the same abbreviations as she used for the writing
assignments (Appendix 1).

One further element that had a rather great impact on the final portfolio grade (40%)
was the overall presentation and layout. This referred not only to the inclusion of all
required assignments (which were worth 5% each), but also to formal aspects, such as
title page, table of contents, clear and attractive arrangement of assignments, and a final
self-assessment. The reason for attributing such a high percentage to presentation and
layout was to serve as incentive for the students to diligently complete all assignments
throughout the semester so that they could easily earn points for including them in their
final portfolio. Precise guidelines and examples on what needed to be included, how, and
in which order were provided (see Appendix G). A more detailed discussion of this
element will follow in Section 3.6.7.

Apart from these additional elements that had to be included in the final portfolio,
there were several other assignments that the students completed throughout the course of
the semester, all related to grammar. The students had to read the grammar explanations
in the textbook at home, and each student was in charge of presenting one grammar
section in class. These presentations could be done in English, as the textbook provides
all grammar rules in English. However, the students were instructed to create German
example sentences of their own and to generate grammar activities for the entire class. In
addition, many of the textbook’s grammar activities were part of regular homework

assignments.

46

3.6 Grading Scales

All portfolios were collected and graded based on grading scales that were developed
together with the students and in accordance with the National Standards for Foreign
Language Education and the American Council on the Teaching of Foreign Languages
Proficiency Guidelines. As mentioned in Chapter 3, the teacher highly encouraged
students’ input on assessment rubrics and weighting of individual portfolio assignments,
however, only little feedback was received. The proposed grading rubrics and criteria
were well accepted by the students and only in the post-questionnaires and the reflective
essays some concerns about more active involvement arose.

Appendix G outlines the general assessment criteria for each of the portfolio

assignments as well as their weighting and is partially reproduced in Table 6.

 

 

Table 6

Weighting of Portfolio Assignments
Speaking assignments 15%
Listening assignments 15%
Reflective essay 10%
Writing assignments 10%
Reading assignments 5%
Unit Test 5%
Layout/inclusion of all assignments 40%

 

 

Note. This table provides on overview of the weighting of the
individual portfolio assignments according to skill and area.

Speaking and listening assignments were weighted at 15% each because (1) they
comprised the biggest number of individual assignments and (2) GRM 201 places heavy
emphasis on oral and aural skills. The reflective essay and the reading assignments were
weighted with 10% each. The reflective essay is an essential part of any portfolio

assessment, as pointed out by Yancey (1996). Much of class time was dedicated to peer

47

review and to improving writing skills, so the teacher thought it appropriate to allot 10%
of the portfolio to writing assignments. Reading assignments and the corrections to the
unit test were weighted with 5% each because they were comparatively small in scope
and effort. The remaining 40% were based on overall presentation and layout.

The remainder of this section will elaborate on the assessment of each of these seven

areas. All criteria were communicated to the students in form of a handout (Appendix

G).

3. 6. 1 Speaking Assignments

All speaking assignments were assessed using the “Grading Scale for Speaking
Assignments” (Appendix 0) that was based on the ACTFL Proficiency Guidelines for
Speaking and the National Standards for Foreign Language Education; they were
remodeled to match the target group. This analytic grading rubric included five sections:
(1) Content and Comprehension, (2) Pronunciation which referred to sounds, intonation,
and stress, (3) Vocabulary, (4) Fluency which referred to the frequency and nature of
pauses, and (5) Grammar which referred to basic structures and forms. Terms like
accurate and sophisticated referred to the expected level of proficiency for second-year
German language students rather than to native-like competency. The maximum number
of points in each section was 20, 12 were needed to receive a passing grade. Section 1
accounted for 40% of each speaking assignment, the other four sections comprised 15%
respectively. The teacher listened to each speaking assignment multiple times and took

detailed notes on each of the five sections.

48

All speaking assignments (the three picture description tasks and the interview) were
graded in accordance with the grading scale and comprised 5% of the total portfolio
grade. The emphasis of the assessment of speaking assignments, another 10%, was on
students’ progress over the course of the semester. For this, the teacher compared the
four speaking assignments of each student, looked at the development over time, and

assessed progress holistically.

3. 6. 2 Listening Assignments

The listening assignments included three listening comprehension worksheets and two
written summaries (one of the interview with a native speaker, the other one of the
student’s partner’s midterm presentation). The summaries were assessed based on the
accuracy of the answers. For the interview summaries, the teacher watched the video
files multiple times and compared the students’ written answers to the actual answers
given by the native speakers. During the midterm presentations, the teacher took detailed
notes on the content of each presentation as well as on the questions that were asked.
These notes built the basis for assessing the accuracy of the midterm summaries. An
additional aspect that was taken into consideration for the worksheets was the number of
correct answers that was given. These two aspects, accuracy and number of correct
answers, accounted for 10%. Another 5% counted towards progress over the course of
the semester. To assess each student’s development of listening skills, the teacher

compared all four listening assignments holistically.

49

3.6.3 Reflective Essay
The reflective essay could be written in English and was assessed based on how well
each of the required issues was addressed. The required issues were:
(1) general perception of portfolio assessment, in particular in comparison with
traditional assessment methods
(2) specific reasons for the selection of the pieces that were not predetermined by
the teacher; the students were alerted to the fact that it would not suffice to
write that a certain piece of their work had been selected because it required
the least amount of corrections
(3) perception of peer review including comments on and reasons for its
perceived usefulness or lack thereof
(4) perception of personal improvement in general and in relation to the four
language skills (speaking, listening, writing, and reading); the students were
also asked to comment on why they thought they improved in certain areas
and not in others and what they felt attributed to their improvement.
The expected length of the reflective essay was between three to four double-spaced

pages. This part comprised 10% of the overall portfolio grade.

3. 6. 4 Writing Assignments

As was mentioned in Section 3.1, the teacher provided feedback at various stages
throughout the writing process of each of the four essays. Each final draft was
commented on extensively by the teacher, providing specific information on each of the

five assessment sections for writing that served as the basis for the assessment of each

50

essay. The teacher’s comments were emailed as a word document to each student as well
as attached in hard copy to the final draft that was returned. The feedback ended with
explicit suggestions on the strengths and weaknesses of each essay and an overall grade.
Appendix P contains the “Grading Scale for Writing Assignments,” which was set up
similarly to the “Grading Scale for Speaking Assignments” in that the rubric contained
five sections, in each of which the maximum number of points was 20. The writing
grading scale was based on the ACTFL Proficiency Guidelines for Writing and the
National Standards for Foreign Language Education. Terms like sophisticated, excellent,
and adequate referred to the expected level of proficiency for second-year German
language students rather than to native-like competency. As was the case with the
grading scale for speaking assignments, the analytic writing scale was set up to match the
target group. It contained five sections according to which each essay was assessed: (1)
Content, (2) Language Use, (3) Vocabulary, (4) Mechanics, and (5) Feedback. Sections 1
and 2 each accounted for 35% of the final grade of an essay, 10% were allotted to section
3, 5% counted toward section 4, and 15% toward section 5. The teacher read each essay
at least three times: once holistically, once to mark errors, and once according to the
analytical scale. The grades for each essay counted toward the overall final class grade.
For portfolio grading purposes, the teacher looked at the overall development of the
essay the student had chosen to include by comparing the drafts and by taking the peer
feedback form as well as the feedback she had provided herself into consideration. This
holistic assessment accounted for 5% of the final portfolio grade. While each essay had
been graded based on the analytic rubric during the semester, this final assessment took a

global stance in that the teacher assessed the overall growth of the student in the area of

51

writing. The chat was graded based on the accuracy of the corrections and comprised 5%

of the final portfolio grade.

3. 6. 5 Reading Assignments

The written summary of the Elvis chapter made up 2.5% of the final portfolio grade and
was assessed holistically based on synthesis and accuracy of information. No points were
deducted for grammar or spelling errors, unless they impeded comprehension. The
students had to paraphrase the content of the chapter and were not allowed to simply
quote passages of the novel. The lntemet worksheet, worth 2.5%, was assessed based on
comprehension and accuracy of the information presented in the reading materials.

For the reading assignments, progress was not directly taken into account because the
two selected assignments were not necessarily chosen from different times in the
semester and they were too different in format to allow for direct comparison. Also, the
major focus of the class was on productive skills, so it did not seem justified to the
teacher to assess progress in reading skills based on these two rather insignificant

assignments.

3. 6.6 Unit Test

The unit test was assessed based on the number and the quality and accuracy of
corrections. The teacher had marked all errors using the abbreviations outlined in
Appendix I, and the students had to provide the exact grammatical rule they had violated
for each error as well as the correction of the error. This part comprised 5% of the final

portfolio grade.

52

 

0n

the

3. 6. 7 Layout

The layout comprised 40% of the final portfolio grade. The term layout might be
misleading, as the major part of this section was the inclusion of all required items (worth
5% each). The reason for attributing such a high percentage to this element was to serve
as incentive for the students to diligently complete all assignments throughout the
semester so that they could easily earn points for including them in their final portfolio.
Table 7 provides an overview of all aspects that were considered part of the layout,

including how they were weighted.

 

 

Table 7

Grading of Portfolio Layout
Inclusion of all required items 75%
Title page 5%
Table of contents 5%
Arrangement of assignments 5%
Reflection of learning/progress 10%

 

 

Note. This table provides on overview of the weighting of the
individual aspects that contributed to the overall layout grade.
The layout accounted for 40% of the final portfolio grade.

As can be seen in the table, each included assignment was worth 5%, which amounts to
75% in total. Apart from the number of assignments included, the layout was assessed on
formal aspects, such as the title page, the table of contents, and the clear and attractive
presentation and arrangement of assignments. 10% of the overall layout grade were
based on how well the portfolio reflects Ieaming and progress, which was assessed based
on the selection of assignments that were included and on a final section called
Selbsteinschatzung (self-assessment), in which the students had to grade their portfolios

themselves and provide reasons for their assessment. This final section could be

53

completed in English, which was the main reason for why it was only weighted with
10%. Also, in assessing each skill, the teacher took progress into consideration, so it
seemed justified to the teacher to attribute only 10% of the layout grade to the overall
reflection of learning and progress as depicted in the portfolio and based on the students’
self-assessment. This part of the grade is separate from the reflective essay, which was
worth 10% of the overall portfolio grade and was not part of the layout.

The students received precise guidelines on what elements the title page had to
contain, how the table of contents had to be arranged, and in which order the assignments
had to be included. All of this had to be completed in German and models were
provided. 48 Some of the assignments (the speaking assignments, for example) could not
be included by the students because only the teacher had access to the files. The students
were instructed to include these assignments in their table of content and create cover
sheets for these assignments, the actual files were later added by the teacher.

This concludes the description of how a multi-skill portfolio was implemented as an
additional assessment tool into a second-year college-level German language classroom.
In Chapter 4, I will provide and discuss the results of the analyzed data according to the
four language skills. Also, the supervising professor’s, the students’ and the teacher’s
perceptions and evaluations are reported, highlighting the effectiveness of portfolio
assessment in this particular classroom. Chapter 5 concludes my research and

summarizes limitations, implications, and future directions.

 

48 See Appendix G.

54

CHAPTER4

RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

This chapter presents the discussion of the collected data according to the four language
skills, including the participants’ perceptions and evaluations based on the self-
assessments, questionnaires, classroom observations, interviews, and the portfolios
themselves. It is the goal of this chapter to highlight the effectiveness of portfolios as an
additional alternative assessment tool in the areas of student learning and instructional
practices. It will be shown how students’ perceptions can be translated into more
effective teaching practices (both instructional and assessment practices) and how
portfolios can provide valid measures of assessment when they are fully incorporated into
teaching, disproving one of the disadvantages of portfolio assessment mentioned in recent
literature. The chapter will conclude with a discussion of the five hypotheses stated at the
outset of this thesis and the teacher’s evaluation of the project.

As was mentioned in Section 2.3, the data analyses included evaluations of the self-
assessments, the questionnaires and the classroom observations, detailed examination of
all parts of the portfolios — particularly the reflective essay —, and transcriptions and
analyses of the interviews. The self-assessments, questionnaires, interviews, and
applicable aspects of the portfolio (i.e., the reflective essay) were compared within and
between participants and the results are discussed in the following. Little emphasis will
be placed on the students’ pre- and post-self-assessments because the items on these self-

assessments were not directly related to the effectiveness of the portfolio but rather

55

served a more general assessment of students’ language and learning strategies use.49
Also, basic self-assessments of the four language skills were included in the pre-and post-
questionnaires and the results from the self-assessments yielded no new insights. When
discussing the results according to the four language skills, aspects of self-assessment by
different students will be briefly commented on, as they fit in with the skill under
investigation.

Implementing a portfolio in a German language classroom has never been used as an
assessment method at MSU. Therefore, it was expected that it would be new to the
majority of the GRM 201 students. Seven of the eleven students indicated on the pre-
questionnaire that they were not familiar with portfolios. Five students indicated that
they had created a portfolio50 before, all of them during high school. Of these five
students, one student strongly disliked the previous portfolio experience, the other four
ranked it on a 7-point Likert scale51 between 4 and 6 with an overall median of 5. The
students commented on their previous portfolio experience as follows:

5. I never found out what the point was so it came off as a waste of time. (31)

6. I liked having a log of my progress at the end of the class, but putting it
together was tedious. (S4)
I liked looking back and seeing my old work and the progress I’ve made. (S6)
At the time [in high school] I did as little work as possible, but I still liked the
portfolio better than a final exam because I had more control over my destiny.
I disliked the list of items. I wish I could choose what to include in order to
demonstrate my proficiency. (S7)

9. I liked that through portfolio work my writing improved, but disliked the
rushed pace of creating one. (S8)

9°."

 

49 One question on the pre- and post-self-assessments asked students to rank the four language skills
according to their perceived difficulty. The results of these rankings will be discussed for all students.

50 Three students specified that it was a writing portfolio.

5] For all scales used, 1 represented the lower/negative end and 7 the higher/positive end, for example 1 =
strongly dislike/not proficient! learned less and 7 = strongly like/very proficient/leamed more.

56

It is obvious from these comments that the students liked the opportunity to see their own
progress over time.

The students’ feelings about traditional testing methods (i.e., written and oral exams)
ranged from 2 to 6 with a median of 4. When asked for their opinion about how fair and
representative of their German skills such methods are, two of the students commented
on the difficulty and pressure of oral exams (SI and S4), while another student
highlighted the fairness of oral exams:

10. Oral exams are entirely fair, written exams seem a bit beside the point — a
language class should teach to read and write within context, not to fill in
blanks. (SI 1)

Two other students (82 and S9) felt that traditional testing methods are fair in most cases
if they reveal a student’s understanding of the subject matter. Other comments were
more critical and included:

11. Not really [fair]. Tests traditionally do not really test complete knowledge
unless they are written very well, and almost none are. Most tests are hit and
miss, you know it or you don’t and that is not a good way to test. (S3)

12. Traditional testing makes one conform to expectations of usage and so that
has advantages, but a bit of freedom to explore and fail is good because you
can learn a lot from your mistakes. So, overall, no, traditional methods do not
fully assess my ability (I think). (SS)

13. I don’t favor grading when such a large portion of the final grade is based on 1
or 2 tests, as opposed to considering the amount of progress made. Some
people may test well with traditional exams, but for other typical testing
doesn’t show what they’ve learned at all. (S6)

14. I think these methods are fair assessments but don’t often ingrain a language
into students’ heads — often what happens is students study for these tests (i.e.
the specific info required) and then forget everything afterward. (S8)

15. Tests just test memorization of a previous chapter instead of general concepts
most of the time. (810)

Overall, the majority of the students seemed to be open and receptive to an alternative
assessment tool. When asked about being actively involved in their own assessment, ten

students answered that they would like to have some input regarding their assessment,

57

especially by having the opportunity to select which assignments to include because it
ensures that students can showcase their best work and their personal progress over time.
The students also mentioned that active involvement in their own assessment helps to
identify and to achieve goals and gives them more control over things involving them.
One of these ten students (S6) mentioned that simply being told what the expectations
and requirements are is nice and one student also added a critical viewpoint:

16. I believe that an epidemic of lowered academic standards is spreading through
the academy. Yes, I do believe in individual assessment practices, not
comparative. So yes I would like to be involved but I hope my professor will
demand great things as well. (S7)

Another student stated:

17. No, because I am lazy, I tend to dislike any sort of active assessment. But it
wouldn’t be too bad. (81 1)

When asked for any additional comments on assessment methods and procedures,
two of the students mentioned that since they had never compiled a portfolio before, they
were not sure what to expect and what to do (SB and S 10). Student 4 was interested in
seeing if and how the portfolio would affect the learning of German. Two other students
mentioned their concerns about the amount of work and the desired/actual results as well
as the benefit of peer work as opposed to corrections by the expert teacher (SS and 88).
Other comments highlighted the fact that all students are different and have their personal
strengths and weaknesses, and that portfolio assessment will take this into consideration
(S6 and S7).

Based on the information gathered from the students’ pre-questionnaires, it seemed
that most of them were interested in portfolios as an alternative assessment method in

GRM 201 and that they saw certain benefits over traditional testing tools, such as being

58

measured based on their own progress and being actively involved in their own
assessment by selecting pieces of their work.

In the following, results pertaining to the four language skills will be discussed which
stem from all data sources (i.e., self-assessments, questionnaires, classroom observations,
interviews, portfolios”). Students’ overall comments regarding these areas will be
provided, emphasizing the similarities and differences between ratings at the beginning

and at the end of the semester.

4.1 Writing
Developing writing skills was an important aspect in this course and much time in and
outside of class was spent on working on the essays. As was mentioned in Section 3.1,
the students had to work in peer groups which were assigned by the teacher. For the first
essay, the students were randomly grouped together because the teacher could not yet
assess the students’ writing abilities. For the other three essays, the teacher tried to match
students with different proficiency levels, a strategy that is encouraged by research
(Cohen, 2004”; Hyland, 2003). This was complicated by the fact that not all students
completed their drafts on time and therefore could not engage in peer review during class.
Those students without drafts were grouped together during in-class peer review sessions
and were asked to engage in pre-writing activities and idea generation. Toward the end

of the semester, much of the peer revision was completed via email. This did not match

 

52 Student 7 did not turn in a portfolio and failed the class; the student did, however, participate in the
interview. When asked why he did not turn in a portfolio, he said that it was mathematically impossible for
him to receive a passing grade in this course even with a 4.0 on the portfolio, which would have been
impossible because of the lack of completed assignments.

3 Personal communication with Alissa Cohen, English Language Center faculty member at MSU
(3/22/04).

59

the intended purpose of orally discussing the drafts in German but still offered the
students the opportunity to work together and to reflect on their own and other’s writing.

Students’ rating of the inclusions of peer review on a 7-point Likert scale ranged from
2 to 7 with a median of 5. Student 8 commented on the inclusion of peer review in the
pre-questionnaire:

18. When engaging in portfolio writing, I think it’s extremely important to have
close student-teacher interaction. While peer review may be slightly helpful,
chances are that my partner is no more proficient in German than I am. Also,
peers will be unable to clearly explain the why’s of sentence structure, etc.
and what instances of certain grammatical rules apply where.

When asked to rate their proficiency in writing at the outset of the semester, students’
ratings ranged from 2 to 5 on a 7-point Likert scale with a median of 3. This changed to
a median of S at the end of the semester (range from 2 to 6). These results are shown in
Figure 1. As the figure shows, at the end of the semester, the majority of students rated
their writing skills higher than or equal to their ratings from the beginning. Two students
rated their skills lower. Both of them only completed one of the assigned four essays and
none of the three chats. A possible interpretation of this decline is that these two students
were more critical and accurate in assessing their own skills at the end of the semester.
This explanation seems to hold true for student 2, who had ranked writing as the second
easiest skill in the pre-self-assessment and as the most difficult skill in the post-self-
assessment. Student 7, on the other hand, ranked writing both times as the second most
difficult skill. This is also the student who did not turn in a portfolio. During the

interview, this student admitted to being an “unmotivated slacker” and to having

underestimated the challenge of compiling a portfolio.

60

Figure 1
Participants’ Rating of their Writing Skills

7

 

very
proficient

 

 

not
proficient

 

 

 

Note. This figure presents the participants’ ratings of their overall writing skills at the beginning of the
semester (pre) and at the end (post) based on a 7-point Likert scale with l = not proficient and 7 = very
proficient.

Two students commented specifically on writing assignments when asked about what

they liked and did not like about the portfolio on the post-questionnaire:

19. Too many writing revision requirements. (SS)

20. I liked writing the essays. I have a visual memory so being able to picture a

sentence in my head, it helps me in other ways (reading, verbal,...). (S9)

Comment 20 shows the necessity to implement different assignment types and tasks. The
student population a teacher typically encounters in college-level language classes can be
rather heterogeneous. By implementing different types of activities for all four language
skills, the teacher can ensure to cater to different learner types and preferences.

The self-assessments included a section on the use of writing strategies. A

comparison of the students’ responses to the pre- and the post-self-assessment

61

questionnaires reveals a general trend of higher use of most writing strategies. In
particular, those aspects that were specifically addressed in the peer review sheets54 were
rated higher in use at the end of the semester than at the beginning. Also, a few students
indicated to use translating engines less and not to look up every unfamiliar word. These
results may indicate that focusing students’ attention on certain writing strategies
throughout the course of a semester will result in an overall higher use of these strategies.

In the reflective essay that was included in the portfolio, each student commented on
the included assignments and on the portfolio experience as a whole. All students’
reflections pertaining to the four language skills and the portfolio process are combined
in Appendix O, which is organized by skills and followed by general comments on the
portfolio process. Overall, the analysis of these essays yields similar results to those
found in the self-assessments and questionnaires. Many students felt that their writing
skills improved a lot, due to the plethora of writing assignments that had to be completed
over the course of the semester. While the four essays posed a challenge for many
students, they also felt that the constant process of engaging in and receiving feedback
and revising their work helped them in becoming more proficient writers. Most of the
students found the peer review to be helpful, especially because it allowed them to see
common mistakes in the writings of their peers. Some of the most striking reflections
about writing that were recurring in many of the essays were:

21. I felt that peer review was a very useful tool in correcting our essays because
it gave you a chance to learn more of the language because you were assessing
the knowledge that others had gained up [to] that point, which is usually very
different from person to person. It also gave us a chance to compare what we

were correcting and what you [addressing the teacher] were correcting so we
could see if we were on the write [sic] track with our writing skills. (Sl)

 

54 Coherent structure, providing examples, using complex sentences, checking for grammatical points such
as subject—verb-agreement or tense and case endings, and drafting and revising.

62

22. Reviewing others showed me common mistakes that other people make and
creative things they do, such as alternate vocabulary and sentence structure.

23. I833) see that peer review may improve our skills in German, but I also think
it is difficult to receive useful feedback from a fellow student at the same level
as myself. (S6)

During the interviews, the teacher had the opportunity to elicit more detailed
responses by the students and ask them specific questions about aspects that she thought
would not be addressed in sufficient detail in the other data sources. In general, all
students reiterated their earlier comments and the majority of the students reported that
their writing had improved and that they thought the peer review to be helpfirl as it
allowed them to learn from other students’ mistakes. Students 6, 8 and 9 made it very
clear that they did not like the peer review sessions and thought them to be a waste of
time. These students felt that their peers did not provide constructive feedback and that
since the peers were not native speakers, all students would stagnate at their current
proficiency level. Students 8 and 9 did acknowledge, however, that it was somewhat
useful to read other essays and to learn from their peers’ mistakes. Both these students
also emphasized that their writing skills improved over the course of the semester,
however, they attributed that to the multitude of writing assignments rather than to the
portfolio per se. Additional positive comments that had not been mentioned before
included that the peer review fostered students’ critical thinking skills (8]) and team
building (SS). Student 11 added that the teacher can only do so much in providing
feedback, but since there are many students in a class, working with them can offer many
additional opportunities for feedback.

While it appears that the students overall felt that the writing assignments helped

improve their German skills, the implementation of four essays and multiple other written

63

assignments that called for extensive feedback and corrections was a burden for the
teacher. As was pointed out in Section 3.1, the teacher provided feedback on the drafts of
essays 2-4 and a detailed assessment of the final versions of all four essays based on the
five sections spelled out in the grading scale for writing assignments.55 Had the portfolio
only focused on writing and had it not been implemented in a condensed summer
semester, the amount of feedback provided by the teacher might have been less of a
problem.

The supervising professor observed the class twice, once at the beginning of the
course during week two (May 27) and once towards the end of the course during week
six (June 22). These two dates were picked because portfolio-related assignments were
covered in class.56 As was mentioned in Section 2.2.3, the objective behind these
observations was to make the teacher aware of and reflect on her teaching style and
methods and to receive an outsider’s perspective on how the students completed tasks
relevant to the portfolio. The teacher’s self-reflection led to differentiated instructional
decisions which improved certain areas that had been pointed out by the supervising
professor after the first observation (namely providing more listening and speaking
opportunities for the students in the classroom and better use of the blackboard to
highlight language features). During the second observation, the students engaged in
peer review. The supervising professor provided suggestions on improving the peer
feedback form and the peer review process as a whole. These comments would have

been more useful at the beginning rather than toward the end of the semester but

 

55 A sample of the feedback on a first and the assessment of a final draft as provided by the teacher is
contained in Appendix R.

56 See Appendix S for the in-class and homework schedule for the two observation dates and the immediate
context (preceding days). Appendix H provides the schedule of all portfolio-related assignments over the
course of the semester.

64

informed the teacher’s instructional practices and classroom management nonetheless for

future reference.

4.2 Reading

Reading was an important skill in this course. Many authentic texts were presented
throughout the textbook and reading was almost always involved when any of the three
other skills were practiced and used. The main reading focus for the portfolio was based
on the novel Elvis in Koln and on the lntemet activities that were completed during class.
It is the teacher’s belief that sound reading skills can enhance students’ other language
skills, in particular writing and speaking. Reading materials deepen students’ vocabulary
knowledge, which is the most crucial part when Ieaming another language with the
intention of being able to communicate. Despite this central role that reading plays
within language learning, the weighting of the reading assignments in the portfolio was
rather marginal. The teacher felt that more emphasis should be placed on productive
skills, which are at the center of a communicative approach to language teaching.

The students were asked to rate their proficiency in reading on a 7-point Likert scale
at the beginning and at the end of the semester. The results are illustrated in Figure 2.
Overall, the students rated their reading proficiency at the outset of the semester with a
median of 4 (range from 2 to 5). This changed to a median of 5 at the end of the semester
(range from 3 to 6). As the figure shows, five students rated their reading skills in the
post-questionnaire higher than or equal to their ratings in the pre-questionnaire
respectively. Only one student (SlO) rated reading skills lower on the post-questionnaire.

This student had ranked reading as the least difficult skill in the pre-self-assessment and

65

as the most difficult skill in the post-self-assessment.57 Student 10 said during the
interview that his writing and speaking skills improved most throughout the course of the
semester (as reflected in the self-assessments) and that based on his improvement, he felt
that reading posed most problems at the end, mainly because he had spent more time in

and outside of class on the other skills.

Figure 2
Participants’ Rating of their Reading Skills

 

7

very
proficient

 

not
proficient

 

 

 

Note. This figure presents the participants’ ratings of their overall reading skills at the beginning of the
semester (pre) and at the end (post) based on a 7-point Likert scale with l = not proficient and 7 = very
proficient.

None of the students specifically commented on reading in their post-questionnaires.

Similar to the results of the use of writing strategies, a comparison of the students’

 

57 The rankings of the four skills for student 10 from least to most difiicult were as follows: Pre-self-
assessment: reading, writing, listening, speaking. Post-self—assessment: writing, speaking, listening,
reading.

66

responses to the pre- and post-self—assessment questionnaires reveals a general trend of
higher use of most reading strategies, however, the results were less defined than was the
case for writing strategies. Especially the reading strategies outlined in the textbook58
were used more frequently by the students at the end of the semester. According to the
self-assessments, the students used dictionaries less and relied more on the context of a
text or on their classmates to figure out the meaning of a particular word or sentence.
Student 11 was the only student whose reading strategies use had not changed for the
better; on the contrary, he indicated that he employed most strategies less often at the end
of the semester than he had in previous German courses. He was, however, one of two
students who read German texts outside of class before the semester started and who kept
reading additional materials throughout the course of the semester. He stated that he read
complex and complicated philosophical texts in German, which might have been the
reason for his lesser use of the particular strategies that were outlined in the self-
assessment questionnaires. In general, he described himself in the self-assessments as an
unprepared student who rarely completes homework assignments or practices what was
studied in class at home. The other student who read authentic texts outside of class was
student 10, who subscribed to a weekly German newsletter. Of the other nine students,
only one (SS) indicated at the end of the semester that he had started reading authentic
texts outside of class, mainly German websites.

Seven students commented on reading in their reflective essays. One student (81) felt
that his reading skills had not improved much because of the lack of new course material.

The other six specifically mentioned that their reading improved, especially due to

 

58 Pre-, during- and post-reading activities such as activating existing knowledge, extensive and intensive
reading, and synthesizing information.

67

repeated practice, a better understanding of grammar, or a larger vocabulary. Some
. recurring reflections about reading were:

24. The thing I have the hardest time with is vocabulary. Just reading more and
more helps me to put words into different contexts which allows me to
remember them better. (S3)

25. The lntemet activities were a very interesting and demanding assignment. I
liked this assignment because it has real world application. (S4)

26. I could see improvement in my reading skills towards the end of class. I was
not just reading word after word, but getting a better idea of when to change
the inflection of my voice, thus developing a better understanding of the
German language. (S6)

Only a few of the students’ comments were directed at reading during the interviews.
Student 1 lamented the fact that the reading assignments included in the portfolio did not
show progress over time since they did not necessarily include pieces from the beginning
and the end of the course. Student 4 had the same opinion and mentioned that there
should have been more assignments on Elvis throughout the semester so that students
could have had a larger pool to choose from. Student 8 felt that the Elvis summaries were
not necessary, especially since they did not have to be revised.

In general, the majority of students felt that the portfolio did not help improve their
reading skills as much as the other three skills. The students greatly enjoyed completing
the lntemet activities, especially because they allowed them to engage in real life tasks
that were of interest to them. The novel Elvis in Koln should have been implemented in a
more structured way by assigning more focused and varied tasks instead of only requiring
chapter summaries.

On the day of the first classroom observation, the students had to read parts of two

Elvis chapters in groups and present the content to the entire class as a role-play. Also,

the students completed an lntemet activity with a partner. Reading activities that were

68

not directly related to the portfolio that day included a text from the textbook with related
questions. The supervising professor pointed out that having students read aloud in class
does not necessarily involve comprehension of what is read. The students could read
silently in class or read the text in question as homework instead. On the next day of
class, the teacher asked the students for their opinions on reading out loud. While most
students admitted that they focused solely on pronunciation when asked to read out loud,
they also said that being able to listen to others read and follow along in their textbook
was helpful. Had it not been for the supervising professor’s comment, the teacher would
not have thought about this aspect of reading. The teacher adopted the supervising
professor’s suggestions for many reading assignments in class, however, sometimes let
the students read out loud because of the students’ comments and because calling on
students at random ensures that students pay attention.

For the lntemet activity, the supervising professor suggested pre-teaching vocabulary
and keeping a list of vocabulary items on the black board, as they come up during a
reading exercise. During the second observation, the supervising professor noted an
increased use of the black board. In this class, another text out of the textbook was
covered and the supervising professor suggested adding more variety to questions about
the reading materials so that such activities would be less teacher-fronted. One
possibility to remedy the predominance of the teacher would be to have the students take

on the role of the teacher and lead discussions or ask the questions.

69

4.3 Speaking
In a communicative classroom, speaking should be one of the major foci and it should be
one of the skills that a lot of time and practice are spent on. The reality of a
heterogeneous classroom, however, makes it difficult to engage students in meaningful
output and the need to assess students’ performance in many different areas does not
allow for a multitude of oral assignments. Despite this less than ideal situation of the
foreign language classroom, the students rated their proficiency in speaking at the end of
the semester with a median of 5 (range from 3 to 5) on a 7-point Likert scale which

represents an improvement from the beginning median of 4 (range from 2 to 5).

Figure 3
Participants ’ Rating of their Speaking Skills

 

7

very
proficient

 

 

not
proficient

 

 

 

Note. This figure presents the participants’ ratings of their overall speaking skills at the beginning of the
semester (pre) and at the end (post) based on a 7-point Likert scale with l = not proficient and 7 = very
proficient.

70

Figure 3 shows that seven students rated their speaking skills higher at the end of the
semester. The remaining four students did not perceive an improvement in their speaking
skills, however, none of the students rated their speaking abilities lower at the end of the
semester than at the beginning.

One student (S8) commented specifically on speaking and listening assignments on
the post-questionnaire, indicating that they constituted the part of the portfolio that the
student did not like because they did not reflect the student’s best abilities. The rating of
this student’s four skills at the beginning and at the end of the semester confirm this
perception (speaking did not improve at all, listening slightly, and writing and reading
both equally). Results concerning the use of speaking strategies based on the self-
assessments will be discussed in Section 4.4 since listening and speaking strategies were
collapsed into one item on the self-assessment questionnaires. When asked about the
amount of speaking German outside of class, only three students indicated that they
rarely used German apart from in class at the beginning of the semester. Two of them
indicated on their post-self—assessment that they used German at least once or twice a
week, mainly to talk with fiiends and during Kafleestunde” (Si and S6). Student 9 still
did not speak German at the end of the semester apart from in class. The other students
indicated on the pre-self-assessment to speak German once/twice a month or a week,
mainly with friends, during Kafleestunde or to themselves for practice. Four of these
students gave the same answer on the post-self-assessment (82, S4, S7, 81 l), the

remaining four spoke more German outside of class by the end of the semester.

 

59 Kafleestunde is a weekly conversation group offered by first- and second-year teachers. Interested
students of various proficiency levels meet with the teachers and other native speakers once a week for 1.5
hours in the relaxed atmosphere of a coffee shop and chat in German, play German board games and read
German magazines and newspapers. Students can make up missed homework by attending Kafleestunde.

71

In the reflective essays, four students indicated that their speaking skills improved.
Perceived reasons for this improvement included reading aloud in class and going to
Kafleestunde. Student 9 indicated that improving in speaking helps in all other areas.
Student 3 also mentioned the importance of speaking practice. For this student, the
picture description tasks were the most difficult assignments of the semester and he felt
that more listening practice would have led to improved speaking skills. Student 8 had
the same opinion, writing:

27. I feel that my speaking and listening competencies are stagnant due to the lack
of focus this semester on these aspects of the language, save a few
assrgnments.

Only one student (S7) commented extensively on speaking skills during the
interview. He found the picture descriptions to be one of the best activities of the
portfolio because they offered meaningful practice in speaking and “there was a lot of
leeway, variables that were in the student’s control there. Using what vocabulary I felt
comfortable using, I could tailor that assignment very well.” He also mentioned that role-
plays are not meaningful and too forced and that students are nervous in front of their
peers. Student 8 reiterated in the interview that speaking and listening should have been
weighted less within the framework of this particular class because it was hard to show
progress based on the speaking and listening assignments that had to be included.

From an educator’s point of view, the rankings from pre- to post-questionnaire are
encouraging, particularly because this skill was the only one that no student perceived to
have gotten worse in. These results might reflect that the instruction during the
timefiame between the two questionnaires was generally supportive of improving

speaking skills, which is a crucial aspect in communicative language teaching. Despite

72

these positive results, there is barely ever enough opportunity to practice speaking in a
foreign language setting that would lead to fluent proficiency over the course of a few
semesters, let alone a 7-week summer semester. Two of the students (81 and SS) pointed
out the importance and usefulness of Kafi’eestunde, which might remedy this lack of
speaking practice in the classroom. It is crucial to provide the students with possibilities
outside the classroom to engage in meaningful conversation. Student 5 added a separate
section to the portfolio, stating:
28. Kaffeestunde is such an important aspect of this course and of my German

201 experience. I believe that it helped me a great deal. The amount that I

gained in morale and practice from going to Kaffeestunde is immeasurable. It

put a cultural and social context behind learning German. Additionally, it

provided much needed practice in speaking and listening. The native and

fluent speakers were a very valuable resource to be exposed to and interact
with.

One of the supervising professor’s comments about the first class observed
specifically addressed the lack of speaking opportunities for the students. She suggested
remodeling some of the activities to promote more communicative language use among
the students. Another suggestion from the second observation concerned back-up
speaking activities in case students are finished with an activity early. The supervising
professor had observed that a few students started reading the newspaper once they were
finished with an activity. Such down time could be bridged with small partner activities

that would offer additional opportunities to engage in meaningful conversation.

4.4 Listening

As has been pointed out several times throughout this thesis and also by various students,

speaking and listening are intrinsically linked skills. It has been mentioned in Section 3.4

73

that the course did not include any additional listening comprehension tasks apart from
the ones included in the portfolio. While the syllabus strongly encouraged students to
practice their listening skills on their own using the materials accompanying the textbook,
the amount of listening practice in this course has been far fi'om ideal. This is directly
reflected in the students’ rating on the questionnaires. Overall, the students rated their
listening proficiency at the outset of the semester with a median of 3.5 (range from 2 to 4)
on a 7-point Likert scale. This changed to a median of 4 at the end of the semester (range
from 2 to 5) and constitutes the least amount of improvement in all four language skills.

Figure 4 represents these results.

Figure 4
Participants ’ Rating of their Listening Skills

 

7
very
proficient
6 _

 

 

 

 

2 ‘ ‘ ,4
not if
proficient

 

., VA:

‘ +212? 51;"...1 ,.

Pre
Pre
Post
Post
Post .< .1:

 

Post ‘i‘;;.-.'

 

 

S 82 S3 S4

 

Note. This figure presents the participants’ ratings of their overall listening skills at the beginning of the
semester (pre) and at the end (post) based on a 7~point Likert scale with l = not proficient and 7 = very
proficient.

74

Two students (81 and 810) rated their listening skills lower on the post-questionnaire
than on the pre-questionnaire and one student rated himself as equal (81 1). Student 1
indicated in the reflective essay that listening was his weakest skill in German and that at
the end of the semester, his listening capabilities were still “sub par.” Similarly, student
10 remarked in his essay that by the end of the semester he was still uncomfortable
answering questions based on listening samples.

Only one student (S8) mentioned listening skills on the post-questionnaire, as has
been pointed out in the above section on speaking. That student felt stagnant in both
speaking and listening because of the lacking emphasis of these skills and voiced the
same criticism in the reflective essay.

When asked about the amount of listening to German outside of the classroom (e. g.,
by watching German TV or movies or by listening to German music), seven students
indicated on both self-assessment questionnaires that they do so rarely. Students 4, 7,
and 11 did likewise at the beginning of the semester, but indicated to listen to German
once or twice a month, mainly to German music online or when watching movies like
Run Lola Run. Student 5 indicated on both self-assessments to listen to the CDs that
accompany the textbook once or twice a week.

Table 8 presents the frequency of participants’ use of learning strategies for writing,
reading, and speaking/listening at the beginning (pre) and at the end (post) of the
semester. Based on the pre-self-assessments, the students generally employed speaking
and listening strategies less frequently than they did reading and writing strategies.
While the majority of the students usually or almost always used the latter two strategies,

they also indicated to use speaking and listening strategies only sometimes or usually.

75

These results stay consistent in the post-self-assessments with a slightly higher use of

strategies in writing and speaking/listening and a slightly lower use of reading strategies.

This decline in reading strategies might be a direct reflection of the minor emphasis that

was placed on reading in this course.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Table 8
Frequency of Participants ’ Use of Learning Strategies

Almost always Usually Sometimes Rarely

Pre Post Pre Post Pre Post Pre Post

Writing 41 41 49 53 35 27 10 8
(12 items) (41) (41) (49) (53) (35) (27) (10) (8)
Reading 24 30 41 34 20 20 3 4
(8 items) (36) (45) (62) (5 l) (30) (30) (5) (6)
Speaking & 15 20 24 29 23 15 4 2
Listening (30) (40) (48) (58) (46) (30) (8) (4)
(6 items)

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Note. This table presents the frequency of participants’ use of Ieaming strategies in numbers as surveyed on
the pre- and post-self-assessments. The column on the left identifies the skill area under investigation and
includes the total number of question items per skill; the pre- and post-self-assessments included 12
question items on the use of writing strategies, 8 items on reading strategies, and 6 items on speaking and
listening strategies. These total numbers of items listed are different from the actual number of items on the
self-assessments. Certain items were not considered for this table because their use was discouraged by the
teacher (items 10 and 14 on writing strategies, item 5 on reading strategies, and items 5 and 8 on speaking
and listening strategies). The numbers in parentheses are recalculations of the raw numbers according to the
lowest common denominator for the question item amount per skill area. These recalculations allow for
easier comparison between skills.

Two students changed their use of certain speaking and listening strategies
immensely: These strategies were asking for help with unknown words (SI) and
circumlocution in German of words that the students do not have in their vocabulary
(S6). Two other students (82 and S3) identified in their reflective essays the listening

assignments as most difficult mainly because of the rate at which the native speakers

76

 

talked and because of the lack of listening practice. On the other hand, three students
commented on their improvement in listening:

29. In listening, I had improved more than I hoped. It is becoming significantly
easier for me to understand tapes of German speakers for class assignments.
(34)

30. The biggest gain I have made is in my listening skills. I feel much more
confident about my ability to understand the general theme of things that are
being spoken about, and also that the speed of the conversation does not
bother or impede my understanding like it did seven weeks ago. My
listening skills are 100% better. (SS)

31. I was surprised at my listening comprehension skills; I thought them to be
much worse than what they actually are. (S6)

Unfortunately, none of these three students provided specific reasons for why their
listening skills improved.

In the interviews, the students reiterated their opinions voiced in the questionnaires
and the reflective essays. In general, the students realized that the most efficient way to
improve all four skills is to actively practice them as often as possible. Many students
identified listening as the area that was most difficult for them and, rightly so, criticized
the limited amount spent on listening comprehension in class. Had listening been more
emphasized in class, it might have not only resulted in students’ higher overall listening
comprehension skills at the end of the semester, but also very likely in even higher
improvements in speaking.

After the first classroom observation, the supervising professor pointed out the
extensive use of English and that the students did not have much opportunity to listen to
German. Based on those comments, the teacher changed some of her instructional habits

to implement the supervising professor’s criticisms. After the second observation, the

supervising professor remarked that more German was used by both teacher and students

77

which offered more opportunities for the students to practice their listening
comprehension.

When looking at the students’ language skill ratings at the beginning and at the end of
the semester, it is very encouraging to see an increase in all four language skills. This
increase could be attributable to many factors, but since there was treatment in all skills
between the pre- and post-questionnaire, the teacher concludes that the instruction did
indeed have a positive effect on students’ skills. These ratings are a direct reflection of
the areas of emphasis throughout the course. Most time was spent on writing activities
and subsequently, the median for this skill jumped from 3 to 5. Only little time was spent
on listening comprehension, and the median for this skill only improved from 3.5 to 4.
Another possible reason for the lower ratings for listening might be attributable to the
difficulty of the authentic listening samples. From some of the students’ comments it can
be concluded that the listening comprehension assignments were well beyond the
students’ abilities.

For easier reference and comparison, Figures 1-4 are reprinted in Figure 5. There is
no general visible trend of productive over receptive language skills or vice versa. When
looking at individual rather that collective progress, it is interesting to note that the
students who received the highest grades in this class generally also rated all four skills
high (81 , S3, S4, 88, S9)."0 Comparably, the students who did not receive passing grades

generally rated their four language skills lower overall (S7, 81 l).6| These results suggest

 

60 S3 and S9, while both having received the same final grade (3.5), rated themselves diametrical in regards
to receptive and productive skills. S3 rated himself higher on both productive skills, S9 rated himself higher
on both receptive skills.

6' Interestingly enough, S7 rated himself lower on both productive skills than on the receptive ones while
81] rated himself higher on both productive skills (with the exception of the post-reading rating).

78

Summary of Participants ’ Language Skills Ratings

Figure 5
Writing

men so“.

oi S oi
mom 0 new.
oi S oi
”moi mom
9
oi S oi
amon— mi
8
oi S oi
“mom mom
7
oi S oi
ii 6 “mi
oi S oi
ii no;
5
oi S oi
non .8;
oi M oi
mi 3 no;
oi S oi
“Ohm umom
95 fl oi
“mom .8;
fl.
oi oi

 
 

Vfly
proficient
not
proficrent
Reading
My
proficrent
not
proficrent

511

SS

S7

79

SI

Speaking

 

 

7
my
proficient
6
s
4
3
2
not
proficient
1
uuuwuwo ~o~ ~o rue-'0“
aéageéagégfigaé’figegeéeg
SI 32 33 54 $5 se 57 $23 so 510 SM
Listening
7
very
proficient
5
4
3
2
not
proficient
l
eaeaeaeaeaeaeaeaeaeaee
“émémn‘llti’mn‘fln‘imémn‘ilémgmé
s1 52 33 S4 ss $6 57 ss 39 $10 511

Note. This figure represents the participants’ ratings for all four language skills. The figures are reprints of
the ones presented earlier and are grouped together to allow easier comparison.

80

that the students were well aware of their abilities in German. An interesting aspect that
remains unexplainable to the teacher is the consistently high ratings (apart from writing)
of two students who barely received passing grades (S2, S6). Student 10 displayed the
most drastic improvement in writing, jumping from 3 to 6 on a 7-point Likert scale.

It is interesting to see that the students’ ratings were most homogeneous in speaking
and most varied in writing. The means of the four skills in both pre- and post-
questionnaires show a slightly more differentiated picture than the medians, and based on
the means listening was rated as the least proficient skill, followed by writing, speaking
and reading.62 Both medians and means for the four skills based on pre- and post-
questionnaires are illustrated in Figure 6.

The standard deviations for the pre-questionnaires are 0.82 for speaking, 0.88 for
listening, 0.94 for reading, and 0.93 for writing. These low numbers indicate that at the
beginning of the course, the students represented a rather homogenous group of learners.
While still representing low numbers, the standard deviations for the post-questionnaires
are more varied, which implies that the students show greater heterogeneity at the end of
the class than they did at the beginning (0.8 for speaking, 1.1 for listening, 0.81 for
reading, 1.66 for writing). This is also reflected in the diversity of individual progress

and of final grades.

 

62 This corresponds with the students’ ranking of the four skills on the pre- and post-self-assessments.

81

Figure 6
Language Skills Medians and Means

 

7

very
proficient

 

 

not
proficient

 

 

 

Speaking Listening Reading Writing

Note. This figure represents the medians and means of the four language skills based on participants’
ratings on the pre- and post-questionnaires. For each skill, the first two columns represent the median and
mean based on the pre-questionnaires respectively, columns three and four represent median and mean
based on the post-questionnaires respectively.

4.5 Evaluation of the Portfolio Process
This section summarizes the participants’ perception of the portfolio process based on the
post-questionnaires, the reflective essays, and the interviews. The results will be checked
against the hypotheses that guided this thesis and the teacher’s evaluation of the portfolio
process and its effectiveness conclude the section.
Results from the pre-questionnaire pertaining to the portfolio process were discussed

in the introductory section of Chapter 4. To summarize the results, the students’ feelings
about traditional testing methods and whether or not they were fair and representative

assessment tools were mixed. Overall, however, the majority of the students seemed to

82

be open and receptive to alternative assessment tools. When asked about being actively
involved in their own assessment, the overwhelming majority answered that they would
like to have some input in and control over their assessment, especially by having the
opportunity to select which assignments to include, showcasing their personal progress
over time. Additional comments included uncertainty about what to expect and concerns
about the amount of work. Other comments highlighted the fact that all students are
different and have their personal strengths and weaknesses, and that portfolio assessment
will take this into account. Based on the information gathered from the students’ pre-
questionnaires, it seemed that most of them were interested in portfolios as an alternative
assessment method in GRM 201 and that they saw certain benefits over traditional testing
tools, such as being measured based on their own progress and being actively involved in
their own assessment by selecting pieces of their work.

The post-questionnaire included similar questions as the pre-questionnaire, but rather
than asking for students’ general perceptions, these questions were specifically
addressing the portfolio experience in GRM 201. The students’ overall portfolio
experience in terms of like/dislike ranged from 1 to 7, encompassing the entire scale, with
a median of 5. Student 7 was at the low end of the scale, student 10 at the high end. Six
students mentioned the ability to see their own progress as their favorite part of the
portfolio experience, another three identified the option of reviewing and correcting
assignments. One student mentioned the ability to choose pieces to be included as his
favorite part. When asked about what they did not like about the portfolio, three students

mentioned “nothing really” and another student wrote that it was overall definitely better

83

than a final. Two students disliked the diligence and effort required by this form of
assessment and one student wrote:

32. I think the portfolio could be improved by it being a requirement to turn in
stuff from different times of the semester. (S4)

In designing this portfolio, the teacher did pay attention to exactly this aspect and made
sure that all four skills would be represented through pieces of work from different times.
The student’s comment points to a problem in communication. The teacher should have
repeated the method and purpose of this alternative assessment too] more often than she
did to ensure that the students understand what they are doing, why, and how they are
being assessed. This aspect will be elaborated on later in this section.

In the pre-questionnaires, the students’ feelings about traditional testing methods
were neutral (median of 4 on a 7-point Likert scale with a range from 2 to 6). This
changed over the course of the semester and the students indicated a slightly more
negative stance, represented by a median of 3 and a range from 1 to 5. Student 6 strongly
disliked traditional testing methods and thought the portfolio to be a fairer and more
representative method of assessment because it takes the individual’s Ieaming skills and
pace into account.63 Overall, ten of the eleven students identified portfolio assessment as
more fair and representative of their skills. Apart from student 6, four other students
mentioned that the individualization of portfolios adds to their fairness, three students
referred to the longitudinal aspect that takes progress into account, and two other students
mentioned their active role in assessment and the required organizational skills that

would transfer to other areas. Student 1 l cautioned that when comparing portfolios with

 

63 It is interesting to note that this student received a low passing grade both on the portfolio and in the
course (1.5 respectively) but still preferred portfolio assessment over traditional testing methods.

84

traditional testing methods, “Fair doesn’t apply. One tests overall, the other tests bit by
bit.”64

A second question asked the students to compare how the portfolio influenced their
learning experience as opposed to traditional testing methods. Answers to this question
ranged from 3 to 7 with a median of 5. This represents a very positive picture of
portfolios as effective tools for Ieaming. It appears that portfolio assessment fosters more
learning than traditional testing methods do. Similarly, the students reported that the
inclusion of portfolio assessment influenced their attitude toward the course in general
(median of 5, range from 3 to 6). Feeling positive about assessment methods that are
used in a certain course adds to the overall positive classroom atmosphere which in turn
will — and did — support learning.

Another question asked the students particularly about their feelings toward active
involvement in their own assessment through the development of grading scales and the
selections of assignments to be included in the portfolio. Three students indicated that
they strongly liked this aspect. In general, the answers ranged from 3 to 7 with a median
of 5 and an even higher mean of 5.45. It seems paradoxical that the students like and
want to be involved in their own assessment, however, when the teacher had asked for
input on grading scales, weighting of items, or any other aspects related to the portfolio
implementation, practically no opinions were voiced. Only retrospectively in the
reflective essays did some students mention that they would have liked to be more

involved in their assessment. As was the case with pointing out the method and purpose

 

64 It is unclear from the student’s comment which assessment methods he refers to. The item on the
questionnaire mentioned portfolio assessment first and traditional testing second, so maybe the student’s
response followed this order (portfolios test overall, traditional methods test bit by bit).

85

of the portfolio, the teacher should have encouraged the students even more to provide
their input on assessment issues.

For the past three questions that were discussed (influence, attitude, and involvement
in assessment), the lowest ratings came from students 7 and 11 who described themselves
as lazy and who did not do well in this class, as pointed out above. Their overall poor
performance is reflected in these lower ratings.

Students’ additional comments on assessment methods and procedures and
suggestions for improving portfolio assessment included:

33. Make purpose clearer to students. (81)

34. The main part of the portfolio seemed to be fixing mistakes in‘ past
assignments and reviewing a semester of work. That was excellent. However,
for a pure portfolio, where a thesis is not being done, I would get rid of all the
reflecting about the portfolio. That was annoying, or would have been if it was
not needed for further work. (S3)

35. I thought having to explain why something was wrong and what it should be
was very helpful. (S4)

36. Have students correct more — it fosters more learning. (S 8)

37. I learned a lot more this time taking this class and the portfolio helped a lot.
Thanks. (S10)

Comment 34 is yet another example for the fact that it is extremely important to
continuously remind the students of the purpose of a portfolio (as pointed out by student
I in comment 33). Despite having discussed and explained each element to be included
in the final portfolio and the rationale behind it in much detail, the students seemed to
have developed their own ideas about portfolio assessment, which did not always match
the teacher’s perception that stemmed from the portfolio literature."S

Based on the results from the post-questionnaire, the students’ overall portfolio

experience can, however, be interpreted not only as positive but more importantly as

 

65 The reflection is a crucial part of any portfolio assessment, as was pointed out in the review of the
portfolio literature in Chapter 1.

86

conducive to Ieaming, which is one of the underlying assumptions this thesis is trying to
prove.

All of the students’ essay comments pertaining to the portfolio process are compiled
at the end of Appendix Q. In general, these comments comprise a more elaborate version
of the opinions voiced in the post-questionnaires. A few shall serve as examples here and
were selected either because (1) they are supportive of the hypotheses that guided this
research project or (2) they added new reasons for why portfolio assessment was
preferable over traditional testing methods or (3) they raised criticisms that need to be
addressed in the future.“ It should be mentioned at this point that every student whose

reflective essay followed the specified forrnat‘57 highlighted at least two of the five

168

hypotheses as helpfu and eight of the nine students who included a proper reflective

essay in their portfolio specifically stated that these aspects led them to prefer portfolio
assessment in this class.

38. The human factor becomes real issue with this sort of assessment. But I think
that the obvious advantage of being able to adjust the weight of certain
assignments based of the ability of the class, or even certain students, is
overwhelming. Another positive of the portfolio assessment is the fact that we
are being graded on how much we have improved over the course of the
session, rather than how much we knew coming into the class. This makes
grading much fairer in my opinion. The use of portfolio assessment is a great
tool to employ for grading in foreign language classes. (31)

39. It was good to go back through all my assignments and look them over. By
doing corrections I was able to see many errors that I often make, and now by
recognizing them I should be able to stray away from them. The portfolio was
a helpful assignment. (S3)

40. The most useful aspect of portfolio assessment is to create an awareness of
where you are in the learning process, recognize the areas that I need to gain a
better grasp of, and identify some techniques that I can strengthen in order to

 

66 The comments presented here are cut together from the reflective essays based on content.
67 Student 7 did not turn in a portfolio at all and the reflective essay of student 1 1 did not follow the
s cified format and therefore did not contain any comments on the portfolio process.

6 The one mentioned most often was the ability to see individual progress, followed by the ability to
review.

87

drastically improve my German skills. People learn at different rates, and the
portfolio system allows each student to build their skills without being
penalized for poor timing. (SS)

41. I believe that [portfolio development] affords students a fairer evaluation of
their foreign language abilities by visualizing their progress. For this
particular portfolio, though, I felt that much of the learning that generally
comprises this type of assignment was absent due to the lack of re-editing
requirements. I believe that much more Ieaming could have been fostered had
students been forced to correct the mistakes in all of their non-spoken
assignments. Editing and correcting is one method through which I found
myself greatly improving my German competency. I feel that in a class
designed like German 201, where reading and writing are focused on much
more than speaking and listening, the percentage value of these required
speaking/listening pieces was far too high. (S8)

42. Working on and seeing the progress I’ve made this semester has made me
more confident in my work. (810)

The quality of the reflective essays was surprising. The students put much effort into
addressing the issues that were of particular interest to the teacher. Their comments show
that they are well aware of the positive and the more problematic aspects of portfolio
assessment. As was mentioned before, a few students (particularly S3 and S8) seemed to
have strong beliefs about this type of alternative assessment, which did not coincide with
the general perceptions presented in the portfolio literature. While it might have been
beneficial for the students to correct their mistakes on all non-spoken assignments, as
suggested by student 8, this simply would not have been feasible within the framework of
the course.69 The students had to review and revise multiple assignments and most of the
other students found that to be helpful. Students 8 and 9 described portfolios as
collections of students’ best works, an aspect that does not necessarily apply to foreign
language portfolios when its main objective is to show growth. As was pointed out in the

guidelines for compiling the portfolio, the teacher strongly dissuaded from simply

 

69 It seems like student 8 has strong beliefs based on the writing portfolios that she had compiled in
previous English classes.

88

selecting best works that required the least amount of corrections but rather encouraged
students to select pieces that would show their progress over time.

Another criticism student 8 stated again in the reflective essay was the inappropriate
weighting of speaking and listening assignments. The teacher had provided as a rationale
that four speaking and five listening assignments accounted for 15% of the final portfolio
grade respectively, while only two writing and two reading assignments accounted for
10% and 5% respectively. This weighting still seems fair to the teacher and none of the
other students raised this issue. One other criticism that did surface in one of the
reflective essays was “the human factor” in grading. While none of the students
mentioned reliability issues that are connected to the fact that the teacher was the sole
grader”, it was interesting to read that one student did think about this aspect.

The interviews did not reveal many additional insights that the post-questionnaires or
the reflective essays had not already discussed. It might have been more useful to
conduct the interviews after reading the reflective essays so that the teacher could have
specifically addressed any remaining issues. Several students emphasized that they were
not clear on how the portfolio would be graded and how it was integrated in the course.
To remedy that problem, student 4 suggested having students turn in the portfolio at
several points throughout the semester so that they can receive feedback on what they
have compiled so far. This would also help them better understand what the portfolio is
about and how it works. Student 1 said that one positive aspect of the portfolio was to
present himself from his best side by putting his strong point out front and hiding weaker

ones. Student 2 made a related comment, saying that students’ attitudes toward a course

 

70 Maybe the students are used to being evaluated by whoever teaches the class and therefore did not
consider this issue further.

89

that implements a portfolio might be influenced in such a way that the students
deliberately perform below their abilities in the beginning so that they have more room
for improvement. Student 3 added that he did not necessarily learn more because of the
portfolio but that what he learned will “stick longer.” Several students (81, S2, SS, S8)
mentioned that the revisions of the exams led to the largest amount of improvement,
which is the ultimate goal of any learning. There was a consensus among all students
that the selection process of works to be included was easy. Also, all students agreed that
portfolio assessment works great for multi-facetted foreign language classes but probably
less so for sciences.

The main assumption that guided this thesis was that the students would prefer
portfolio assessment to traditional testing methods for five reasons, which served as
hypotheses:

(l) Portfolios do not simply test knowledge but rather highlight individual progress.

(2) All four language skills are included in the portfolio assessment which will cater
to different learner types and their learning style preferences.

(3) The use of technology allows the students to complete assignments at their own
pace.

(4) The portfolio assignments will force students to review their own work which
will raise their awareness of certain aspects (e.g., errors) pertaining to the skill in
question.

(5) By working closely with peers, the students will become aware of errors and will

be able to correct them in the future.

90

The data presented in this chapter provide strong support for hypotheses l, 4 and 5 and
partial support for hypotheses 2 and 3. It was surprising that in none of the data sources
the students mentioned the use of technology despite the rather large role it played in this
course. The only comment that indirectly addressed this aspect was the positive mention
of the lntemet activities that were meaningful because they were task-based and provided
authentic contextual information. Maybe the use of technology is already seen as a basic
requirement even in language classes. The data do reveal instances of students’ referring
to being able to pace themselves, however, none of these comments were in the context
of the use of technology. As for hypothesis 2, only few students directly addressed this
issue in any of their reflections. However, the mere fact that the students rated different
language skills as improved at the end of the semester can serve as strong indication for
the underlying concurrence of this hypothesis.

Based on the data, it seems appropriate to rephrase several of the hypotheses to better
reflect the students’ actual perceptions. Also, additional aspects surfaced in the data that
seemed to have had an impact on students’ perceived usefulness and effectiveness of
portfolio assessment. The following statements are the result of a combination of the
initial hypotheses and students’ actual comments. These statements are ranked according
to the frequency of occurrence in the data. It is assumed that the most frequent comments
are the strongest indicators for the effectiveness of portfolios, which is why they appear
first.

The students will prefer portfolios to traditional testing methods as a more effective

assessment tool for the following reasons:

91

(1) Portfolios do not simply test discrete knowledge but rather highlight progress
over time and allow the students to recognize areas of weakness as well as
improvement.

(2) Portfolios take each individual student in a class into account and cater to their
heterogeneous needs, offering more opportunities to succeed.

(3) Portfolios allow students to work at their own pace.

(4) Portfolios grant students an active role in their own assessment.

(5) Portfolio assignments force students to review, revise, and reflect on their own
work which will raise their awareness of errors which in turn will help them
correct and/or avoid errors in the future.

(6) Peer review raises students’ awareness of common errors and fosters team work.

(7) Portfolios help identify learning techniques that can strengthen each of the four
language skills.

(8) Portfolios foster organizational and critical thinking skills.

(9) Portfolios build confidence.

Several evaluative remarks have already been made at various points throughout this

chapter. I would like to add a few final remarks about my own evaluation of the portfolio

process. The presented portfolio implementation had its drawbacks but it is a first

attempt at implementing portfolios in second-year German language courses at college

levels. In general, I am very pleased with the implementation and the results of this

project. The portfolio process was a useful professional development experience for me

as it offered valuable insights into course development and student learning and

assessment. These insights had a positive impact on my instructional practices because

92

they were directly and continuously transferred and applied, which resulted in a

classroom that was more conducive to learning.

Based on the students’ comments and my own reflections, a few practical aspects

would have made this portfolio experience even more effective:

It is of utmost importance to remind students over and over again of the method,
purpose, and grading criteria of a portfolio. Only once students truly understand
the meaning behind such an assessment tool can they take advantage of all aspects
to the fullest extend possible.

The portfolio should have been collected at various points throughout the
semester to better monitor students’ progress and to provide students with
feedback.

The assignments to be included for each skill should be of a similar format to
allow for direct comparison. Also, they should be taken from different times
throughout the semester to reflect students’ progress.

A reflective essay on the portfolio process half way through the semester might
offer students and teachers insights into the experience. Students’ suggestions
could be immediately implemented into the teaching practice and enhance
Ieaming.

The final interviews should have been conducted after the reflective essays were
read. That would have allowed for asking specific questions to aspects that had

not been sufficiently addressed.

The portfolio was fully incorporated into instruction and it was a flexible assessment tool

that took the students’, the teacher’s and the supervising professor’s suggestions into

93

account throughout the semester and strived toward the best possible methods of teaching
and assessing. The aspects of integration, information of participants and instruction
based on participants’ perceptions make the present portfolio a valid measure of
assessment. The portfolio assignments integrated skill competence in context and moved
away from testing discrete knowledge. Inherent aspects of this and any portfolio that
claims to be valid are the assessment of students’ work over time, in meaningful context,
and in accordance with standards of expectations of what constitutes good, relevant, and
authentic work. The grading scales used for this portfolio reflected standards of
expectations that were informed not only by the ACTF L Proficiency Guidelines and the
National Standards, but also by the teacher’s personal perceptions based on previous
language teaching experiences with similar groups of students. These standards for
assessment also make the expectations and purpose of the portfolio transparent to
outsiders. Based on the students’ perceptions and their actual improvements in the four
language skills, this portfolio did indeed measure progress over time and, in my opinion,
it did so effectively and in a way that allowed the students to learn and retain more than

traditional testing tools would have.

94

CHAPTER 5

CONCLUSION

Chapter 5 concludes my research and summarizes limitations, implications, and future

directions.

5.1 Limitations
There were several limitations in regards to the present study, the most pertinent ones
being (1) that the researcher was also the teacher, (2) the small scale of the study in both
number of participants and duration, and (3) issues in design.

The major drawback of this study was the fact that the researcher also taught the class
and in addition was the sole rater of the students’ portfolios. This last aspect raises issues
of reliability, which are, however, inherent to most language classes where only the
teacher assesses his or her students. In general, human judgment is prone to be
subjective, which is a major disadvantage. Using human raters for assessment purposes,
particularly for high-stakes situations, adds an external factor to take into account when
looking at issues of reliability. However, using human raters carries a big advantage over
machine-scored ratings which restrict the diversity of available assessment formats.
While the present study employed only the teacher/researcher as rater", there was no
inter-rater reliability to be reported and it remains unclear if the assessment was reliable.

One way in which this portfolio assessment tried to account for reliable measures was by

 

7' This was due to the rather pragmatic reason that during the summer semester no other qualified teachers
were on campus who could have served as additional raters.

95

using specific rubrics for grading the assignments that were transparent and that had been
successfully used by many teachers.

Apart fi'om reliability issues, the constellation of teacher and researcher being one and
the same person placed further limitations on the study. There was only one point of
view and, apart from the comments following the two classroom observations, there were
no intervening factors that might have encouraged ongoing critical reflection about
instructional practices. The portfolio literature strongly suggests to design and to
implement portfolios with a team of interested teachers and/or researchers. This would
allow for stimulating conversations about purpose, content, and format of the portfolio.
However, while being in the teacher role, I had ample background knowledge about
portfolio related issues which might have not been the case, had I chosen to implement a
portfolio in a class I did not teach myself. I believe that this aspect greatly enhanced the
portfolio experience as I was flexible and knowledgeable enough to adjust to any arising
problems.

The second major limitation was the small scale of the study in both number of
participants and duration. Reporting descriptive statistical results of 11 participants does
not allow for generalizations. Also, many variables were not accounted for and could
have (and probably did) influence the portfolio process. As I just pointed out, the fact
that I as a teacher had certain views about portfolios based on the literature I had read
influenced the design of the course. A teacher’s enthusiasm about any aspects related to
the classroom or the lack thereof can carry over to the students. Since I was very excited
about this project, I might have positively influenced the students, who otherwise would

have rated the experience more negatively.

96

Fitting a four-skill portfolio into a seven-week course was overly ambitious,
especially since it was the first time that such a project had been undertaken in this
particular course. It was incredibly time consuming and cumbersome to create
meaningful contextualized assignments and to grade all of them. The portfolio was no
less demanding for the students. For a first-time portfolio, it might have made more
sense to focus on one or two skills. Another drawback of the short time span was that
there was an inherent limit on the progress the students can make. During a regular
semester, the assignment schedule would have been less crammed and the students could
have focused more on individual assignments which would have probably led to more
active engagement with the materials. Nonetheless, I was very pleased with the
performance of the students in class and I believe that overall the implementation was a
good first try.

The third major limitation concerned issues in design. As was pointed out at the end
of Chapter 4, a few practical aspects would have made this portfolio experience even
more effective. Apart from the ones mentioned above, certain technology problems arose
over the course of the semester. I had assumed that all students would have access to the
lntemet at home, which was not the case since many students lived somewhere else for
the summer than where they live during regular semesters. Not all students had access to
high-speed lntemet, which was a prerequisite to complete many of the portfolio
assignments.

Another major problem in design was the lack of an entry and exit exam to assess the
students’ beginning and final levels. Simply asking students to rate their own skills

might not reveal their true proficiency levels, as was discussed in regards to students 2

97

and 6. Also, the effectiveness of the portfolio as assessment tool in comparison to
alternative testing methods could have been better evaluated, had there been a control
group. This was, however, impossible during the summer.

Despite these limitations, I still feel that this portfolio implementation was a success
and was well received by the students. Their reflections consistently addressed their
preference of this assessment over traditional tests, due to the advantages outlined at the
end of Chapter 4. By making the portfolio one of many assessment tools in this course, I
ensured to cater to all different learner types, and the course design offered ample
opportunities for all students to succeed. I would implement portfolio assessment again
in a German as a foreign language course, however, I would take the aforementioned
limitations and practical aspects into account and make the proposed changes to the

existing design.

5.2 Implications
Simply setting up portfolios will not necessarily improve teaching and learning,
what ultimately makes the difference is what teachers and students do with
portfolios and the ways in which they use the information in portfolios to think
about teaching and Ieaming. (Valencia & Place, 1994, p. 666)
This quote by Valencia and Place points to the importance of integrating portfolios in
instructional practices and of continuously reflecting on the experience. It is necessary
that all participants understand the rationale behind the purpose and the structure of such
an assignment. Results based on self-reflection will only prove beneficial if they are
implemented into the process. The results from this thesis can inform similar projects in

the future. The portfolio design presented here is transferable to any foreign or second

language setting and portfolios in general can be implemented in most subject areas.

98

Being able to monitor one’s own progress and improvement over time usually fosters a
student’s confidence which in turn might boost motivation. This alternative assessment
tool not only improves student learning, it can also enhance the quality of instructional
practices through constant reflection, as was shown in this study, and provide valid and
reliable measures of assessment.

As was pointed out earlier, the complexity and heterogeneity of students’ learning
require not only diverse forms of students’ work, but also multiple methods of
assessment, and portfolios lend themselves to co-implementation with traditional
standardized testing. This study does not suggest eliminating traditional testing methods
entirely because different testing tools can be used to assess different aspects of learning.
The goals and purposes of assessment should dictate which tool should be used.
Portfolios are a more authentic assessment method than traditional tests because they
resemble features of language use and are contextualized. Assignments such as the
interview, the peer review where students had to engage in negotiation of meaning, or the
lntemet activities all represent authentic, communicative, and performance-based tasks
that a traditional paper-based test could not assess. It is crucial to make materials
relevant to students because that will enhance the probability that students become
interested and get involved in the task at hand.

Some of the revised hypotheses at the end of Section 4.5 concern general skills and
strategies that are transferable to other contexts. In this respect, a portfolio can equip
students with crucial concepts such as critical awareness, organizational skills, autonomy,

and the ability to collaborate and self-reflect.

99

Students have rather strong opinions about testing methods, as can be seen from the
data presented in this study. Usually, students’ opinions and preferences about classroom
practices are barely considered when instructional decisions are made. However, being
open to their suggestions and taking them into account can impact teaching practices in a
positive way. It makes assessments more purposeful in the eyes of the students and by
knowing that a teacher cares about and values a student’s opinion, not only the classroom
atmosphere and the rapport between teacher and students might be enhanced but also
student learning. Even though designing and implementing a portfolio is time

consuming, it is a worth-while effort.

5.3 Future Directions
Some suggestions for future research include the remedy of the identified limitations of
this study. Conducting a study that uses a control group will allow for a comparison of
student performance based on inclusion/exclusion of a portfolio. This will provide better
insights into the effects of portfolios on student learning. Also, issues of reliability
should be addressed by using multiple trained raters.

A longitudinal study would offer insights into long term retention of the aspects
specifically addressed in a portfolio. In such a study, different variables should be
controlled for to get a better grasp of what really influences student learning. It would be
interesting to see if and how teaching effectiveness and student Ieaming are affected
when a portfolio implements only one or two language skills. Conducting research with
different populations and levels will offer insights into the generalizability of findings

across groups.

100

All these suggestions will help educators better understand student Ieaming. One of
the goals of a teacher is to provide effective language instruction that is contextualized

and meaningfirl. Portfolios seem to be a step into the right direction.

101

APPENDICES

102

APPENDIX A: Student Pre-Self-Assessment

SELF-ASSESSMENT

Please take a couple of minutes to complete the following statements. The self-assessment will help you
later when reflecting on your portfolio experience.

Please answer the following questions, thinking about any previous German courses (either at MSU,

during high school or elsewhere) you have taken.

1. I complete my homework before class.

El Almost always Cl Usually El Sometimes El Rarely

2. I am prepared for class. (I bring my books and practice what we are studying.)
CI Almost always Cl Usually El Sometimes El Rarely

3. I pay attention in class.

D Almost always El Usually El Sometimes El Rarely

4. I am an active participant in class discussions.

[3 Almost always Cl Usually Cl Sometimes CI Rarely

5. I am an active participant in group work with classmates.

El Almost always 13 Usually El Sometimes El Rarely

6. I ask questions when I do not understand.

El Almost always El Usually D Sometimes El Rarely

7. a. I speak German outside of class.
El Every Day CI Once/twice a week [:1 Once/twice a month Cl Rarely

S"

If yes (every day, once/twice a week, once/twice a month), on what occasion and with whom?

 

 

8. a. I read German newspapers, magazines, or books.

CI Every Day 13 Once/twice a week El Once/twice a month [I Rarely

F"

If yes, please specify what you read and where you obtain the reading.

 

 

103

9. a. I watch German TV/movies and/or listen to German music.

El Every Day Cl Once/twice a week

El Once/twice a month

b. If yes, please specify what you view/listen to and where.

El Rarely

 

 

10. Rank the following skills according to their difficulty (1 = least difficult for me, 4 = most difficult for

me)

Speaking
Listening
Reading
Writing

1 1. Speaking and Listening Strategies:

Before I start speaking, I brainstorm words and
phrases I can use when talking.

I think about what information is most important to
the listener so I can focus on it.

If I don’t know how to say something, I try to explain
it with words I know in German.

If I don’t know how to say something, I ask a more
proficient speaker or look up the word later.

I switch back to English.

1 work with classmates to practice speaking and
listening German.

If I don’t understand something, I ask the speaker
about it.

If I don’t understand something, I pretend I
understood (e.g., by nodding).

104

Almost
always

Usually

Sometimes

Rarely

12. Reading Strategies:

I think about what I already know about the topic.
I make predictions and read to find out if I was right.

I reread sentences before and after a word I don’t
know.

I guess meanings of words I don’t know from the
context.

I look up every unfamiliar word in a dictionary.
I am able to find specific information.

I look for the main idea.

I ask another student for help.

I discuss what I read with others.

13. Writing Strategies:

I think about what I already know about the topic and
make a list of ideas, words, and phrases I might use.

I organize my thoughts and ideas so that I can focus
on one central idea.

I make sure the writing has a definite beginning,
middle, and end.

I try to make my writing interesting, e.g., by adding
examples.

I write a first draft and the reread and revise it.
I check to make sure that my writing makes sense.
I make sure the sentences relate to each other.

I use familiar language structures sol know 1 am
writing correctly.

If I don’t know a word, I use a word or phrase I know.
1 look up every unfamiliar word in a dictionary.

I check my spelling and punctuation.

I check my use of verb tenses and agreement.

I ask another student for help.

I use a translating engine.

105

Almost
always

El
El
Cl

Cl

DDUDCI

Almost
always

El

[:1

DEIDEI

L'IEICICICICI

Usually

[:1

Cl

EIElCIEICI

Usually

DEICIEIEI

EIDDEIEID

Sometimes

El

[:1

EICIEIEIEI

Sometimes

El

DUDE]

DEIUEICIEI

Rarely

Cl

Cl

EIUEIDEI

Rarely

ClElElL'JCI

DECIDED

APPENDIX B: Pre-Questionnaire

PRE-QUESTIONNAIRE

Please take a couple of minutes to answer the following questions in as much detail as possible. If you
need more space than provided, feel free to use the back of the questionnaire. The questionnaire will
remain confidential. Thank you for your cooperation.

I. Are you familiar with portfolios?
El Yes El No

2. a. Have you ever created a portfolio in the course of your academic career?
D Yes E] No

b. If yes, when and where (e.g., elementary school, high school, college, university, etc.)?

 

 

c. On a scale of l-7(1 = strongly dislike, 7 = strongly like), how would you rate your previous

 

portfolio experience?
I I I l I I I
1 2 3 4 S 6 7
strongly strongly
dislike like

(I. What did you like/dislike about it?

 

 

3. a. On a scale of 1-7 (1 = strongly dislike, 7 = strongly like), how do you feel about traditional testing
methods (i.e., written and oral exams)?

I I I I I I I

 

1 2 3 4 5 6 7
strongly strongly
dislike like

b. Do you think traditional testing (i.e., written and oral exams) is a fair method of assessment and
representative of your different German skills (speaking, listening, reading, writing)? Please

explain.

 

 

106

On a scale of 1-7 (I = not proficient, 7 = very proficient), how would you rate your overall proficiency

in German in the following skills:

 

 

 

 

a. Speaking

I I I I I I I

l 2 3 4 5 6 7

not very
proficient proficient
b. Listening

I I l I I I I

l 2 3 4 5 6 7

not very
proficient proficient
c. Reading

I I I I I I I

l 2 3 5 6 7

not very
proficient proficient
d. Writing

I I I I I l I

l 2 3 4 5 6 7

not very
proficient proficient

Would you like to be actively included in your own assessment, for example through the development

of grading scales and by deciding which assignments should be included in your portfolio? Why/Why

not?

 

 

 

 

 

 

107

6.

Please add any additional thoughts or comments on assessment methods and procedures.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

7. a. What is your rationale for taking this course?
[3 Requirement El Other
b. If other, please specify.
Personal Information:
8. What is your gender?
El Male El Female
9. What is your class level?
[I Freshman CI Sophomore Cl Junior 13 Senior El Graduate or other
10. What is your overall GPA?
D 1.9 or less CI 2.0-2.2 CI 2.3-2.7 CI 2.8-3.3 CI 3.4-4.0
l 1. Please specify how many semesters/years of foreign language education you have had, including
which foreign language(s) and what level (e.g., beginner, intermediate, advanced).
12. Have you ever traveled to or lived in a German-speaking country? If yes, where, when, and for how

long?

 

 

 

Thank you very much!

108

APPENDIX C: Observation F orm

Time Activities Observed Comments / Questions for teacher Teacher’s answers to
Suggestions question or responses
to comments

 

Overall comments by supervising professor:

Response by teacher:

109

APPENDIX D: Post-Questionnaire

POST-QUESTIONNAIRE

Please take a couple of minutes to answer the following questions in as much detail as possible. If you
need more space than provided, feel free to use the back of the questionnaire. The questionnaire will
remain confidential. Thank you for your cooperation.

I. a. On a scale of 1-7 (I = strongly dislike, 7 = strongly like), how would you rate your portfolio

experience this semester?

 

l I I l I I I
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
strongly strongly
dislike like

b. Which specific part of the portfolio did you like best? Why?

 

 

c. What did you not like about the portfolio? Why?

 

 

2. a. On a scale of 1-7 (1 = strongly dislike, 7 = strongly like), how do you feel about traditional testing

methods (i.e., written and oral exams)?

 

I I I I I I I
l 2 3 4 5 6 7
strongly strongly
dislike like

b. Do you think that portfolio assessment is a fairer method of assessment and more representative of
your different German skills (speaking, listening, reading, writing) than traditional testing? Please

explain.

 

 

3. On a scale of 1-7 (1= learned less, 7 = learned more), how did the portfolio influence your Ieaming
experience when compared to traditional testing?
I l l I I l I

 

l 2 3 4 S 6 7
learned learned
less more

110

4. On a scale of 1-7 (1 = strong negative influence, 7 = strong positive influence), how much did the
inclusion of portfolio assessment change your attitude towards this course?

I I I I I I I

 

1 2 3 4 5 6 7
strong negative strong positive
influence influence

5. On a scale of 1-7 (1 = strongly dislike, 7 = strongly like), how do you feel about your active
involvement in your assessment (development of grading scales, selections of assignments to be
included in your portfolio)?

I I I

I

—
I-
_

. I

1 2 3 4 5 6 7
strongly strongly
dislike like

6. On a scale of 1-7 (I = not helpful, 7 = very helpful), how do you feel about the inclusion of peer

review as a method of feedback?

I I I

_
~

I

 

l 2 3 4 5 6 7
not very
helpful helpful

7. On a scale of 1-7 (1 = not proficient, 7 = very proficient), how would you rate your overall proficiency

in German in the following skills:

 

3. Speaking
I I l l I I l
l 2 3 4 5 6 7
not very
proficient proficient

b. Listening

I I I

I-
I‘
-—

 

 

] 2 3 4 5 6 7
not very
proficient proficient
c. Reading
I I I l l l l
l 2 3 4 5 6 7
not very
proficient proficient
d. Writing
I l l l l l l
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
not very
proficient proficient

lll

8. Please add any additional thoughts or comments on assessment methods and procedures and

suggestions for improving portfolio assessment.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Thank you very much!

112

10.

ll.

12.

I3.

14.

APPENDIX E: Interview Outline

Please comment on your portfolio experience this semester.

Have you ever completed a portfolio for another class?

If yes, what class was it, what did you have to include, and how satisfied were you with this form of
assessment?

How did you like the portfolio assessment in GRM 20]?

Were there any parts of the portfolio you liked/didn’t like working on?
Any parts you found not useful or unnecessary about the portfolio?

Which parts of the portfolio were easy to do? Which ones were difficult? Why?

Was it difficult to select certain pieces of your work for your Portfolio? Why or why not? What were
some of the things you considered when you chose certain pieces to be included (e.g., topic, number of
revisions, grade)?

Did you feel that by working on a portfolio you were more responsible of your own work?

Did the portfolio help you in being more organized this semester?

Did you find working with your peers helpful (both while working on the portfolio and during the
review at the end)? Why or why not?

Did you think revising your work individually and with peers was beneficial?

Did you like being actively involved in your own assessment (developing grading scales, selecting
assignments to include in the portfolio)?

Do you think a grade based on a portfolio is fairer and reflects your work and achievements better than
traditional testing methods (written tests and essays)?

Did completing a portfolio influence your learning experience in a positive or negative way? Did you
learn more/less? Please explain.

Did the portfolio influence your attitude towards the course in a positive or negative way?
Did the portfolio help you to identify areas of your own strengths and weaknesses in German

(speaking, listening, reading, writing)? Did it influence any of these skills in a positive or negative
way?

. Overall, do you think you learned more because of the portfolio? In which areas?
. Would you prefer to receive grades based on portfolios for your other classes? Which ones? Why?

. What, if anything, would you want to change or add to the portfolio process to make it more effective?

ll3

APPENDIX F: Preliminary Information Sheet about the Portfolio Assessment

GRM 201 INTERMEDIATE GERMAN I Summer 2004

INFORMATION SHEET PORTFOLIO ASSESSMENT

As part of this course, you will compile a portfolio. The portfolio will comprise 25% of your final grade.
There are eleven assignments you have to include in your portfolio, some of which are predetermined by
the instructor, some of which you can select. Most of the assignments are regular homework assignments.
These eleven assignments cover all four skills (Speaking, Listening, Reading, Writing).

Predeterrnined:
(1) Picture descriptions (Speaking)
(2) Interview (Speaking and Listening)
(3) Listening comprehension summary based on your notes from the midterm (Listening)
(4) ' Listening comprehension worksheets (Listening)
(5) Reflective essay in English on the portfolio assessment, including your perception of peer
review, reasons for selection of certain pieces of your work, perception of improvement

Selected by you:
(6) One chat session including corrections (Writing)
(7) One of your essays, including all drafts (Writing)
(8) One written summary on an “Elvis” t0pic (Reading)
(9) One lntemet worksheet (Reading)
(10) One grammar summary including exercises
(l 1) One Unit Test with detailed corrections

We will discuss in class how each individual part should be evaluated and weighed, and we will come up
with a specific grading scale for the portfolio. Your suggestions are welcome.

114

APPENDIX G: Final Information Sheet about the Portfolio Assessment

Portfolio Assessment
The portfolio needs to contain the following assignments:

Predetermined:

(1) Three picture descriptions (Speaking)

(2) Interview with a native speaker (Speaking and Listening)

(3) Listening comprehension summary based on your notes from the interview and the midterm
(Listening)

(4) Three listening comprehension worksheets (Listening)

(5) Reflective essay in English on the portfolio assessment, including your perception of peer
review, reasons for selection of certain pieces of your work, comments on the use of technology
in the course, perception of improvement

Selected by you:
(6) One chat session including corrections (Writing)
(7) One of your essays, including all drafts and the peer review sheet (Writing)
(8) One written summary on an “Elvis” topic (Reading)
(9) One lntemet worksheet (Reading)
(10) One Unit Test with detailed corrections

Speaking assignments 15%
Listening assignments 15%
Reflective essay 10%
Writing assignments 10%
Reading assignments 5%
Unit Test 5%
Layout/inclusion of all assignments 40%

The speaking assignments will be assessed using the Grading Scale for Speaking Assignments (5%). The
emphasis will be on the student’s progress over the course of the semester (10%).

The listening assignments will be assessed based on the number (for the worksheets) and accuracy (for
worksheets and summaries) of the answers (10%). The progress over the course of the semester will be
taken into consideration (5%).

The reflective essay will be assessed based on how well the required issues are addressed. The required
issues are: general perception of portfolio assessment (as opposed to traditional assessment), reasons for
selection of certain pieces of your work (the ones not predetermined except 8; it is not sufficient to write
that a certain piece required the least amount of corrections ©), perception of peer review (usefirl, why/why
not), perception of own improvement (in which areas (speaking, listening, writing, reading), why/why not).
Three to four pages (double-spaced) will be average.

The writing assignments will be assessed based on your corrections (chat, 5%) and your progress (essay,
5%). The corrections can be written onto the chat or on a separate piece of paper. The essays will be
assessed using the Grading Scale for Writing Assignments.

The reading assignments will be assessed based on the synthesis and accuracy (Elvis, 2.5%) and
comprehension and accuracy (lntemet, 2.5%) of information.

The Unit Test will be assessed based on the number and quality/accuracy of corrections. The corrections
can be written onto the test or on a separate piece of paper.

115

The layout will be assessed based on the number of assignments included and formal aspects, such as title
page, table of contents, and arrangement of assignments (clearly and attractively presented).
The 40% will be divided as follows:

Inclusion of all required items 75% (each assignment is worth 5 %)
Title page 5%
Table of contents 5%
Arrangement of assignments 5%

Reflection of learning/progress 10%

The title page will need to contain the following information:
Name

Kursinformationen

Datum

Titel

The table of contents will directly follow the title page and should be arranged by skills (speaking,
listening, reading, writing). Assignments 1, 2, and 3 will be added by the instructor. They do, however,
need to be mentioned in the table of contents (it might be a good idea to put listening and speaking at the
end of the portfolio). The reflective essay should come first and should be page number 3. For all
consecutive assignments, add a page with the chapter title (e.g., Test, Schreiben, etc) before adding the
actual assignments. When adding assignments, you don’t have to include these pages in your page count
(e.g., title page “Test” can be 4, followed by the test including revisions, followed by title page “Schreiben”
which would be page number 5).

Conclude your portfolio with a self-assessment (Selbsteinschdtzung): What grade do you think you should
get and why? This can be done in English.

Additional comments are optional.

Sample table of contents (Inhaltsverzeichnis):

1. Reflektiver Aufsatz ......................................................
2. Test ........................................................................
3. Schreiben .................................................................
3. Chat ...............................................................
b. Aufsatz ...........................................................
4. Lesen ......................................................................
a. Elvis ..............................................................
b. lntemet ...........................................................
5. Heren ......................................................................
a. Harverstandnis Arbeitsblatter .................................
b. Zusammenfassung Interview ..................................
c. Zusammenfassung Midterm ...................................
6. Sprechen ...................................................................
a. Bildbeschreibungen .............................................
b. Interview .........................................................
7. Selbsteinschatzung .......................................................
8. Kommentare ..............................................................

fill-BU)

116

APPENDIX H: Portfolio Assignment Schedule

GRM 20] Assignment Schedule

Week I : May 17-21

 

 

 

 

 

Freizeit
in class homework for next class
Mo - course introduction
5/17 - assign and explain Aufsatz 1 (draft due on
Thursdgy, final on Monday)
Tu - ANGEL: Berlin - draft Aufsatz 1 due (bring 2 copies to class)
5/18
Th - introduction “Elvis”
5/20 - discuss portfolio assessment and peer review
- Aufsatz l peer review
Fr - finish peer review - Elvis summary 1-3
5/21 - Elvis chapters 1-3 - listening comprehension worksheet l

 

 

- discuss listenifi comprehension

- Aufsatz 1 (also turn in draft)

 

Week 2: May 24-28

 

Kommunikation

in class homework for next class
Mo - Elvis skits 2, 3 - review for Test 1
5/24 - lntemet activity Berlin - outline interview questions

- explain comment function for Aufsatz
- review for Test 1

 

 

 

 

 

 

Tu TEST 1 — picture description 1 due

5/25 - expgin Chat

Th - Elvis chapters 4-5 - Chat 1 due

5/27 - lntemet activity Kino

Fr class cancelled - email Aufsatz 2 draft to instructor and peer
5/28 by Sunday, noon

 

Week 3: May 3 I -June 4

 

 

 

 

 

in class homework for next class
Mo MEMORIAL DAY
5/31 no class ©
Tu - Aufsatz 2 peer review - Elvis summary 4-5
6/1 - interview
Th - review for Test 2 - review for Test 2
6/3
Fr TEST 2 - Aufsatz 2 (also turn in drafts)
6/4 - Elvis chapters 6-7

 

 

 

117

 

 

 

Week 4: June 7-1 I
Deutschland im 21. Jahrhundert

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

in class homework for next class
Mo - Elvis skits - interview summary due
6/7 - review for midterm
Tu ORAL MIDTERM - email Aufsatz 3 draft to instructor and peer
6/8 by Wednesday, 6 pm. (bring in 2 copies)
- Elvis summary 6-7
Th - Aufsatz 3 peer review
6/ 10
Fr - review for Test 3 - review for Test 3
6/11 - Elvis chapters 8-9 - Chat 2 due
- lntemet activity Koln
Week 5: June 14-18
F amilie ,
in class homework for next class
Mo TEST 3 - Elvis summary chapters 7-9
6/14 - Elvis - oral midterm written summag due
Tu - Elvis skits - picture description 2 due
6/15 - Aufsatz 3 peer review - Aufsatz 3 (also turn in drafts)
Th - Elvis - listening comprehension worksheet 2
6/17
Fr - review for Test 4 - review for Test 4
6/18 - e-card “Familie” (timed writing)
- Internet activity Marchen
- Elvis
- start writing Aufsatz 4
Week 6: June 21-25
Musik
in class homework for next class
Mo TEST 4 - email Aufsatz 4 draft to instructor by
6/21 Tuesday, 10 am. and bring I copy to class
- Never ending story due
Tu - Aufsatz 4 peer review - Chat 3 due
6/22
Th - picture description 3 due
6/24
Fr - review for final and portfolio - Aufsatz 4 (also turn in drafts)
6/25 - lntemet activig Musik - review for the Final Exam

 

 

 

Week 7: June 28-July 1

 

 

 

 

in class homework for next class
Mo class cancelled work on your portfolio
6/28
Tu LISTENING AND ORAL FINAL
6/29
Th portfolio interviews
7/1 PORTFOLIO IS DUE BY NOON

 

 

 

118

 

 

 

 

APPENDIX I: Explanation of Abbreviations used by the Teacher to Correct Assignments

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Erklarungen filr die Tests
Abktlrzung Bedeutung
art article
case you need a different case
conj conjugate the verb
end ending
German translate the word into German
noun capitalize nouns
prep preposition
pron pronoun
sp spelling
SVA subject verb agreement
verb you need a different verb or conjugate the verb
WO word order
word word missing or you need a different word
x something is missing here
? or crossed out redo completely

 

 

119

 

APPENDIX J: Essay Topics

Aufsatz l Thema: ,,Ein Traumwochenende“

Sie haben ein Wochenende frei und Geld ist kein Problem. Sie kOnnen machen, was Sie wollen. Die
einzigen Regeln (rules) sind: 1) Sie dtlrfen nicht langer als acht Stunden pro Nacht schlafen; 2) Sie dttrfen
nicht femsehen. Machen Sie Plane fttr ein Traumwochenende.

Keep in mind:
- please type essays double-spaced in 12 point font
- include a title (in German - not just “Aufsatz l”)
- length: 200-250 words (please include a word count)
- use and underline 3 vocabulary words from this chapter
- grammar focus: verb forms

Aufsatz 2 Thema: ,,Postkarte aus East Lansing“

Sie hatten Besuch von einem Freund/einer Freundin und Sie haben ihm/ihr Ihre Stadt (East Lansing)
gezeigt. Nun ist er/sie wieder weg. Schreiben Sie eine Postkarte an Ihre Eltem und beschreiben Sie, was Sie
gesehen und gemacht haben.

Keep in mind:
- please type essays double-spaced in 12 point font
- include a title (in German — not just “Aufsatz 2”)
- length: 200-250 words (please include a word count)
- use and underline 3 vocabulary words from this chapter
- grammar focus: past tense

Aufsatz 3 Thema: ,,Urlaub in Europa“

Stellen Sie sich vor, Sie sind ftlr 3 Wochen in Europa. Welche Lander besuchen Sie? In welcher
Reihenfolge? Welche Sehenswtlrdigkeiten sehen Sie sich an? Mit welchen Verkehrsmitteln reisen Sie?
Beschreiben Sie, wie Sie die 3 Wochen verbringen. Verbinden Sie die Stttze mit Adverbien wie daher,
dann, erst, spater, zuerst und mit Konjunktionen wie aber, als, bevor, da, damit, dass, denn, nachdem,
obgleich, sobald, wahrend, weil und wenn.

Keep in mind:
- please type essays double-spaced in 12 point font
- include a title (in German — not just “Aufsatz 3”)
- length: 250-300 words (please include a word count)
- use and underline 3 vocabulary words from this chapter
- grammar focus: word order: time, manner, place

Aufsatz 4 Thema: ,,Marchen“
Schreiben Sie ein neues Marchen. Die Marchenmotive auf Seite 101 kennen Ihnen dabei helfen. Seien Sie
kreativ! Wenn Sie wollen, kennen Sie auch lllustrationen zu Ihrem Marchen machen.

Keep in mind:
- please type essays double-spaced in 12 point font
- include a title (in German — not just “Aufsatz 4”)
- length: 300-350 words (please include a word count)
- use and underline 3 vocabulary words from this chapter
- grammar focus: nominative and accusative cases
- you can choose a tense (remember to be consistent)

120

Feedback Geber (dein Name):
Autor des Aufsatzes (Name des Partners):

APPENDIX K: Peer Feedback Fornr

Peer Feedback Form

 

 

Datum:

 

Lies den Aufsatz deines Partners und beantworte die folgenden Fragen. Konzentriere dich auf die
Hauptideen und NICHT die Grammatik, auBer die Grammatik macht es schwer, den Aufsatz zu verstehen.

1.

2.

10.

ll.

l2.

l3.

14.

15.

I6.

Hat der Aufsatz einen spezifischen Titel? Was ist der Titel?

Behandelt der Aufsatz das Thema? __ Wenn nicht, spezifiziere wo.

Hat der Aufsatz eine Einleitung, einen Hauptteil und ein Ende? Spezifiziere diese Elemente.
Ist der Aufbau des Aufsatzes logisch? Erklare warum/warum nicht.

Ist der Aufsatz interessant zu lesen? Warum/warum nicht? Wenn nicht, hast du Ideen fllr den
Autor, wie er/sie den Aufsatz interessanter gestalten kOnnte?

In welche Hauptideen ist der Aufsatz geteilt? Uberschneiden sich diese Ideen? Wenn ja, erklare warum.
Verwendet der Autor Beispiele?

Sind irgendwelche Sétze konfus oder unklar? Wenn ja, erklare warum.
Verwendet der Autor Haupt- und Nebensatze? Gib Beispiele.

Sind irgendwelche Worter oder Ideen unklar?

Verwendet der Autor verschiedene Vokabeln oder wiederholt er/sie sich oft?
Sind alle Substantive groB geschrieben?

Verwendet der Autor Konjunktionen und Uberleitrmgsworte? Gib Beispiele.
Hat jeder Satz ein Verb?

Verwendet der Autor die richtigen Verbfonnen? Gib Beispiele wenn nicht.

Hast du andere Kommentare, Fragen oder Vorschlage die deinem Partner beim Revidieren des
Aufsatzes helfen?

121

APPENDIX L: lntemet Activity

Name:

 

Ein Besuch in Koln
Intemetaktivitat

Bitte Offnen Sie die Seite http://www.koeln.de. Klicken Sie links auf ,,Guide“ und dann auf ,,Gastronomie“.
Klicken Sie dann auf ”Biergarten in Koln“.

Sie treffen Helmut, Bea und Alfred in Kbln und m6chten zusammen am Samstag (12.Juni) in einen
Biergarten zum Abendessen gehen. Diskutieren Sie mit Ihrem Partner auf Deutsch in welchen Biergarten
in der Stadtmitte Sie gehen wollen. Beantworten Sie die folgenden F ragen.

1. Name des Partners:

 

2. In welchen Biergarten in der Stadtrnitte gehen Sie?

 

3. Warum haben Sie diesen Biergarten gewahlt?

 

 

4. Warm ist der Biergarten geoffnet und welches Publikum finden Sie dort? Wie viele Leute konnen in

diesen Biergarten gehen?

 

 

5. Was essen und trinken Sie, Ihr Partner und Helmut, Bea und Alfred und wie teuer wird Ihre

Rechnung?

 

 

 

6. Sie wollen am Samstag (12.06.2004) um 18 Uhr mit dem Bus vom Dom zum Biergarten fahren.
Welche Busverbindungen gibt es? Wie lange dauert die Fahrt, wie oft mussen Sie umsteigen und

welche Preisstufe ist die Fahrt?

 

 

122

Nach dem Abendessen wollen Sie in einen Club in KOIn gehen. Klicken Sie links auf ,,Kultur und

Szene“. Klicken Sie unten rechts auf der Seite auf ,,Clubs“. In welchen Club gehen Sie?

 

Warum haben Sie diesen Club gewahlt?

 

 

 

Warm Offnet der Club und was wird geboten (what is offered)? Welche Musik wird gespielt? Welche
Attraktionen gibt es? Wie teuer ist der Eintritt?

 

 

 

 

 

 

123

APPENDIX M: Picture Description Tasks

Story 1 tells the story of two children, who are preparing a picnic basket in the kitchen. While their mother
shows them a map, the puppy hops into the basket. The children leave and as they sit down on top of a hill
to eat their sandwiches, the puppy jumps out of the empty basket.

Story 2 tells the story of a dinner party. Two men are talking on the phone and one invites the other to
dinner. The hosts prepare the meal, fish, and while setting the table, the cat is hiding underneath the table.
The hosts get dressed and the guests an'ive. In the dining room, they notice that the fish is gone. The man
rushes to a pizza delivery and the two couples enjoy their dinner while the cat is licking its paws.

Story 3 tells the story of a man who looks at his rather big belly in a mirror. He is studying a book on how
to get in shape by jogging. While running outside, people laugh at him, he trips over a dog leash, falls and
hurts his knee and is bitten by the dog. On his way home it starts to rain and by the time he is back home,
he is completely soaked and hurt and the book is in the trash.

124

APPENDIX N: Listening Comprehension Worksheet

Horverstandnis 1 - ,,Paradebeispiel“

Dieser Text ist aus der deutschen Zeitung ,,Die Zeit“ (aquivalent zu ,,New York Times“). Harald
Martenstein spricht fiber aktuelle Themen.

Hore den Text einmal an. Dann lies die Aufgaben. Here den Text noch mal an und beantworte die Fragen.
Bitte hare den Text nicht mehr als vier (4) Mal an.
Es ist nicht so wichtig, dass du alles perfekt verstehst. Die Hauptideen sind wichtig!

Hier sind einige wichtige Vokabeln aus dem Text in chronologischer Reihenfolge (von links nach rechts):

verlaufen - to go; to proceed Umzug - parade; procession
Geschlechtsverkehr austlben - to have sex Wehret den Anfttngen! - Resist the beginnings!
Faschismusgewame - warning about fascism durch und durch - thoroughly

ekelig - disgusting Verharmlosung - belittlement
vorwerfen - to accuse of Auslaufer - descendant

Hippie Bewegung - hippie movement Beweis - proof

Schmetterling - butterfly Motte - moth

Fruchtfliege - gnats scherzen - to joke about

schweigend - silent ernst nehmen - to take seriously

die dunkelsten Kapitel - the darkest chapter ohrfeigen - to slap someone in the face
ttbel - bad beschimpfen - to insult

mit den Achseln zucken - to shrug zwinkem - to wink

Lokal - restaurant Kellner - waiter

absagen - to call off auskommen - to manage; to get by

die Zinnen - battlements lobpreisen - to praise

I. Was ist das Thema des Artikels?

 

2. Was ist das Datum der Ausgabe?

 

3. Was passiert in diesen Monaten?

a. Februar 1. Christopher Street Day
b. Mai 2. Marathon

c. Juni 3. Halbmarathon

d. Juli 4. Karnevalsumzug

e. September 5. Love Parade

6. Kameval der Kulturen

4. W0 schaut sich Harald Martenstein die Paraden an?

 

 

125

Warum nimmt er sein Kind nicht mehr mit? (Was gefallt ihm nicht an der Parade?)

 

 

Wie beschreibt Harald Martenstein die Parade? Schreibe mindestens fitnf (5) Adjektive auf.

 

 

Wann wird Kritik in Deutschland emst genommen?
Wenn man Leute ohrfeigt.

Wenn man Scherze macht.

Wenn man von Nazis spricht.

Wenn man zu viel trinkt.

53-.“ F"?

Wohin soll die Parade nach der Meinung von Harald Martenstein gehen?

 

 

126

 

APPENDIX 0: Grading Scale for Speaking Assignments

 

 

 

 

   

 

 

  
  
 
 
 
 
 

 

 

 
 
 
  
 
 
 
 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

   

 

C ontent/ 15% Pronunciation 15% Vocabulary 15" n Fluency l5 Grammar
Comprehension (sounds, intonation, stress) (frequency and nature ofpauses) (basic structures and forms)
Covers all requirements 20 Accurate pronunciation of 20 Accurate usage 20 Slight hesitation 20 No major errors in word order
No irrelevant information most words Sophisticated vocabulary Self—correction/rephrasing No major en‘ors in morphology (SVA
Logical development Almost no detectable English Excellent choice of words Mostly natural pauses and lenses)
Substantive and detailed (many accent with no errors Excellent connection between Sentence variety including complex
examples) Accurate intonation and stress Excellent range of sentences structures
Interesting No major errors that interfere vocabulary Inclusion oftransition words and
Responds always appropriately with comprehension No English terms conjunctions
No major errors that interfere with
17 | 7 __ l7 l7 comprehension
Covers most requirements 16 Mostly accurate pronunciation 16 Mostly accurate usage 16 More frequent and inappropriate 16 Occasional errors in word order
Almost always on topic ofmost words Somewhat sophisticated pauses Occasional errors in morphology
Almost no irrelevant information Slightly detectable English vocabulary No significant breakdown of Sentence variety including some
Logical development accent Good choice of words with speech/communication complex structures
Fairly substantive and detailed Somewhat accurate intonation some errors that don’t Some self-correction/rephrasing Some use of transition words and
(some examples) and stress obscure meaning Good connections between conjunctions
Somewhat interesting Occasional errors that interfere Adequate range of sentences Occasional errors that interfere with
Responds mostly appropriately with comprehension vocabulary but some comprehension
repetition
15 15 Barely any English terms IS 15
Covers some requirements 14 Frequent pronunciation errors 14 Frequent errors 14 Many pauses l4 Errors in word order
Some irrelevant information Detectable English accent Unsophisticated vocabulary No effective communication Errors in morphology
Some development Frequent errors in intonation Limited word choice with Use of English interferes Little sentence variety with minimal use
Not much substance or detail and stress some errors obscuring Barely any self— of complex structures
(few exampleS) Some errors that interfere with meaning correction/rephrasing Little use oftransition words and
Somewhat uninteresting comprehension Repetitive choice of words Some dISjointed connections conjunctions
Responds often inappropriately Some English terms between sentences Some errors that interfere with
l3 l3 l3 l3 comprehension
Covers almost none of the 12 Substantial pronunciation l2 Substantial errors 12 Lengthy pauses 12 Serious errors in word order
rlt‘illllllel‘nents errors Very simple vocabulary Complete speech/communication Serious errors in morphology
Substantial amount of irrelevant Strong English accent Severe errors in word choice breakdown No sentence variety with no complex
mformation Substantial errors in intonation that often obscure meaning Use of English interferes structures
No development and stress No variety in word choice significantly No use oftransition words and
No substance or details (no Frequent errors that interfere Many English terms No self—correction/rephrasing conjunctions
examples) with comprehension Disjointed connections between Frequent errors that interfere with
Completely uninteresting sentences comprehension
Resonds mostly inappropriately 0 0 0 0

 

127

 

 

 

 

 

APPENDIX P: Grading

 

Scale for Writing Assignments

 

  

 

 

 

 
   
  

 

 

    
   
 

 

 

  
  
   

 

  
   
 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Content | 35% Language Use 100"?) Vocabulary 50’" Mechanics 15% Feedback
No irrelevant information 20 Excellent use oftransition words and 30 Sophisticated vocabulary 2() Appropriate layout 20 Implementation ofall
Logical development conjunctions Excellent choice of words No spelling errors suggestions by the teacher
Substantive and detailed Excellent connections between with no errors No punctuation errors Evidence of implementation of
(many exampleS) sentences Excellent range of vocabulary No capitalization errors peer feedback
Interesting No major errors in word order Inclusion of required Minimum word count Excellent and adequate provision
Frequent use ofcomplex structures vocabulary of peer feedback
Excellent sentence variety No English terms
17 No major errors in morphology 17 17 17
(SVA and tenses)
No errors that interfere with
comprehension _,
Almost “0 irrelevant 16 Good use oftransition words and 16 Somewhat sophisticated l6 Appropriate layout 16 Implementation ofmost
information conjunctions vocabulary No more than a few spelling suggestions by the teacher
Logical development Good connections between sentences Good choice of words with errors in less frequent Evidence ofimpletnentation of
Fairly substantive and detailed Occasional errors in word order some errors that don‘t obscure vocabulary peer feedback
(some exampleS) Frequent use of complex structures meaning No more than a few punctuation Good and adequate provision of
Somewhat interesting Good sentence variety Adequate range of vocabulary errors peer feedback
Occasional errors in morphology but some repetition No more than a few
15 Almost no errors that interfere with 15 Inclusion of required 15 capitalization errors 15
comprehension vocabulary Slightly below minimum word
Barely any English terms count (10%)
Some irrelevant information 14 Occasional use oftransition words 14 Unsophisticated vocabulary 14 Mostly appropriate layout 14 Implementation of some
Some develOpment and conjunctions Limited word choice with Some spelling errors in less and suggestions by the teacher
Not much substance or detail Some disjointed connections between some errors obscuring more frequent vocabulary Some evidence of
(few examples) sentences meaning Some punctuation errors implementation of peer feedback
Somewhat uninteresting Errors in word order Repetitive choice of words Some capitalization errors Few and some inadequate
Minimal use of complex structures Inclusion of some ofthe Below minimum word count provisions of peer feedback
Little sentence variety required vocabulary (25%)
13 Errors in morphology 13 Some English terms 13 13
Some errors that interfere with
comprehension F
Substantial amount of 12 No use of transition words and 12 Very simple vocabulary 12 No attempt to arrange essay 12 No implementation of
irrelevant information conjunctions Severe errors in word choice appropriately suggestions by the teacher
NO development Disjointed connections between that often obscure meaning Several spelling errors even in No evidence of implementation
No substance or details (no sentences No variety in word choice frequent vocabulary of peer feedback
examples) Serious errors in word order No inclusion of required Many punctuation errors No provision of peer feedback
Completely uninteresting Almost no attempt at complex vocabulary Many capitalization errors
0 structures 0 Many English terms 0 Far below minimum word count 0
No sentence variety (40%)
Serious errors in morphology
Frequent errors that interfere with
comprehension

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

128

 

 

 

 

APPENDIX Q: Students’ Responses from the Reflective Essays

This appendix contains students’ comments taken from the reflective essays, organized by language skill
and by general comments on the portfolio process. They are direct quotes from the students’ portfolios;
everything was retained exactly as presented in the reflective essay but grouped together by area. Not all
students commented on all areas. Student 7 did not turn in a portfolio.

Writing

Student I: I feel I received great feedback from [my peer] when she corrected my essay. Not only did she
fill out the feedback sheet but she made numerous and detailed corrections on the essay as well. I felt that
peer review was a very useful tool in correcting our essays because it gave you a chance to learn more of
the language because you were assessing the knowledge that others had gained up [to] that point, which
is usually very different from person to person. It also gave us a chance to compare what we were
correcting and what you [addressing the teacher] were correcting so we could see if we were on the write
[sic] track with our writing skills. My writing has improved a bit due to the weekly essays, which I feel
were very useful.

Student 2: The Aufsatz assignments I found to be very difficult.

Student 3: Peer review was helpful. My partners gave excellent feedback and their input on the Aufsatzen
gave me a broader knowledge of writing. They were able to point out common mistakes that I made and
express an alternate point of view on how to fix those mistakes. In some cases, they even told me how
they overcame similar problems, and that allowed me insight to fix the complications I have myself.
Reviewing others Aufsatzen was also helpful. Reviewing others showed me common mistakes that other
people make and creative things they do, such as alternate vocabulary and sentence structure.
Something that was more fun than about all other things in this class was the chats. It is comprised of a
wide range of topics and shows how broad my skills are thanks to this class. I made a lot of progress due
to the Aufsatzcn. I had never written that much, but nothing helps more than just working on it and
practicing. The Aufsatzen were the most helpful part of the class.

Student 4: I enjoyed the peer review. By reading the work of others, it allows you to be able to check if you
are on track with the progress of the rest of the class and in the process you can learn from their errors
and pick up some tips for writing in German. While the worksheets to go along were a nuisance at times,
I feel they are necessary to keep the reader on track. Through the Aufsatz I have improved my writing
abilities. At first I would think of a sentence in English and then struggle to translate it to German. Now,
I write everything out in German and I am constantly spending less time looking up the correct words.

Student 5: My perception of the peer review is that I got more out of reviewing other’s essays than I did out
of having my essay reviewed by my peers. Feedback from the instructor was more useful. I got quite a bit
out of giving reviews to others. It provided me with useful examples of how others write and use German
to express their ideas. I could see in classmates’ writing structures what things and ideas I might want to
try using. Reviewing and editing classmates’ essays also motivated me to think about grammar and
broadened my vocabulary in new and interesting ways. Some of my efforts [in writing] failed at first,
but I usually learned from my mistakes and am progressing in my abilities. Writing in German is still
a challenge, but I can produce more sentences with fewer mistakes and with more variety than I thought
was possible at the beginning of the course. The chat corrections seemed very redundant. Overkill.

Student 6: I would much prefer editing or corrections from the instructor. I can see that peer review may
improve our skills in German, but I also think it is difficult to receive useful feedback from a fellow
student at the same level as myself.

Student 8: Editing and correcting is one method through which I found myself greatly improving my
German competency and I believe the portfolio would have been a more effective assignment had

129

students been required to do so more. I also found it oftentimes difficult to work with peers on essay
review. I believe that it was, in general, more of a hassle than anything else. There was little valuable
feedback to be given. Peer are often no more competent in a language than you are and are not able to
identify complex grammar and vocabulary mistakes. The only positive aspect of peer review that I can
find is that it does in fact force students to read and decipher German. My writing and reading abilities
are much higher due to a better understanding of grammar and a larger vocabulary.

Student 9: The peer review, in my opinion, was relatively unhelpful (I guess it depends on who replies too).
I corrected all the mistakes [in my chat and test] and most importantly understood them. They say you
learn from your mistakes. ..I agree.

Student 10: I felt that I have most improved on my writing ability. I feel that the peer feedback and
feedback from the instructor is the basis, especially with writing assignments, of understand ones
mistakes, and being able to catch what you might not while reading over your own draft. I found that I
received a much higher mark if] had better feedback from my peers instead of correcting it by myself.

Student ll: Doubtlessly, some of the credit for my improvement [in writing] is due to my peer’s review of
my work. Although the formal review of my peers seemed less helpful than the review given by my
instructor, I wish I had taken more advantage of it.

Reading

Student I: My reading has not improved much, mostly because of the lack of new material covered, such as
grammar.

Student 3: The thing I have the hardest time with is vocabulary. Just reading more and more helps me to put
words into different contexts which allows me to remember them better. Elvis was fun to read. As
with the Aufsatzen, the best way to learn a skill is just by practicing it. My reading skills have vastly
improved thanks to Elvis. I was introduced to many different styles in the text and I was able to
implement them into my writing. [The lntemet activities] just added to the amount of practice I was able
to have reading. But one more aspect of the lntemet activities was to Ieam some more about German
culture.

Student 4: The lntemet activities were a very interesting and demanding assignment. I liked this assignment
because it has real world application. My reading has improved as well. I have learned the skill of
relaxing and just understanding the main idea instead of worrying over what every single word means. I
now read straight through the first time and the go back to clarify sentences and words I did [not]
understand. I am no longer overwhelmed about reading selections in German as I was before the class
started.

Student 5: My reading skills improved.
Student 6: I could see improvement in my reading skills towards the end of class. I was notjust reading
word afier word, but getting a better idea of when to change the inflection of my voice, thus developing a

better understanding of the German language.

Student 8: My writing and reading abilities are much higher due to a better understanding of grammar and a
larger vocabulary.

Student 9: Since I have a visual memory, reading really helped me.

130

Speaking

Student 1: I guess I feel I have improved in speaking quite a bit because we spoke mostly in German during
class and in Kafi‘eestunden.

Student 3: Speaking practice is very important. The picture descriptions were the most difficult assignments
of the semester. Had we had more listening practice we would have been able to speak better.

Student 4: When reading over the chat to make my corrections, I realized that I could actually talk about
relevant stuff in German. Reading aloud in class was definitely positive because it allowed for the
speaker to practice pronouncing familiar and unfamiliar words in the presence of someone who knows
how to correctly pronounce them. I was confident going into my final oral examination.

Student 5: My speaking skills improved. Even when I am unsure about content (which is less and less with
every day), the words are fim to say. . . . My speaking skills are 100% better.

Student 8: I feel that my speaking and listening competencies are stagnant due to the lack of focus this
semester on these aspects of the language, save a few assignments.

Student 9: My speaking ability seems much better and that helps me in all other areas.

Student 10: I personally feel that my speaking abilities have improved ten-fold since I began this class. I
feel more confident with the language and am able to come up with words instantly, or at least better than
before. I feel I’ve improved more in this subject than in listening or reading.

Listening

Student I: I myself am terrible at listening to German. My listening has improved a bit but I feel it is
still sub par.

Student 2: The listening comprehension I also found very difficult since the speakers, being native, spoke
very quickly and for me at least sounded like the mumbled.

Student 3: All the listening assignments were hard. I am not used to hearing native speakers talk.
Overall there was not enough listening practice. I did improve here as well, but I did not get as much
practice here as in other areas.

Student 4: In listening, I had improved more than I hoped. It is becoming significantly easier for me to
understand tapes of German speakers for class assignments.

Student 5: The biggest gain I have made is in my listening skills. I feel much more confident about my
ability to understand the general theme of things that are being spoken about, and also that the speed of
the conversation does not bother or impede my understanding like it did seven weeks ago. My
listening skills are 100% better.

Student 6: I was surprised at my listening comprehension skills; I thought them to be much worse than
what they actually are.

Student 8: I feel that my speaking and listening competencies are stagnant due to the lack of focus this
semester on these aspects of the language, save a few assignments.

Student 10: I’m still uncomfortable answering questions based on listening to a sample or being in
conversation.

131

Portfolio Process

Student I: A more useful grading tool than the traditional assessment of exam and homework grades. The
fact that the instructor can see the differences in each student’s Ieaming ability and tailor a grading scale
to them makes a lot of sense, although it is not at all practical and leaves itself wide open to criticism.
The human factor becomes real issue with this sort of assessment. But I think that the obvious advantage
of being able to adjust the weight of certain assignments based of the ability of the class, or even certain
students, is overwhelming. Another positive of the portfolio assessment is the fact that we are being
graded on how much we have improved over the course of the session, rather than how much we knew
coming into the class. Portfolios level the playing field considerably and make it so that one student’s
ability is not arbitrarily compared to another’s, regardless of ability. This makes grading much fairer in
my opinion. [The exam included in the portfolio] was a good indication of how much I had learned in
class, but it was also a good indicator of how much more I had to learn. Now that [several of my stupid
mistakes] have been brought to my attention I am hopefully less likely to make errors like that in the
future. Unfortunately, I feel that I did not improve much over the past seven weeks, due to the content
we covered, not because of instruction. The use of portfolio assessment is a great tool to employ for
grading in foreign language classes.

Student 2: Going over the mistakes I made [in the exams] and correcting them helped a great deal since I
saw the little stupid errors I made that were totally avoidable. [The teacher] made the class fun and
interesting my not becoming overly arrogant with the material, looking down on the class for not meeting
some higher level of expectation. This made the class experience more rewarding since one felt
comfortable to make a mistake and hence Ieam from it in a kind manner rather out of fear from receiving
insults.

Student 3: This is the first portfolio that I have done. It was good to go back through all my assignments
and look them over. . .. The corrections at the start of the semester were difficult, but now after I have put
in this work, corrections are much easier and I am creating these works much faster. Overall it was
helpful to review the assignments I did over the course of the semester. Also by doing these corrections I
was able to see many errors that I often make, and now by recognizing them I should be able to stray
away from them. The portfolio was a helpful assignment.

Student 4: While selecting different works and finding the predetermined ones, I took the time to look over
everything I have done this semester. The amount of work I have done is amazing and I am pleased by
the progress. Another, unexpected, aspect of the portfolio is that I actually took the time to look back
over things I did not understand that first time around. Throughout working on the portfolio I have
learned from many of my mistakes. I have also taken the time to look up why I did something incorrect
and learn how to do it right for future reference.

Student 5: Assembling a portfolio provides a useful structure within which one can begin to process and
track the kinds of development that an individual has made in an area. This is a very useful process for
the study of language, and is even more so for the study of a second language such as German. The
portfolio does many things, but the most useful aspect of portfolio assessment is to create an awareness
of where you are in the Ieaming process. By assembling this portfolio, I was able to see step by step the
areas that I made progress in. I was able to take pride in a few of the things that I can do with more
proficiency, recognize the areas that I need to gain a better grasp of, and identify some techniques that I
can strengthen in order to drastically improve my German skills. One of the shortcomings of the
traditional assessment process is that the student rarely gets the opportunity to demonstrate fully the
progress they are making. A traditional exam assessment approach places a large emphasis on timing.
The traditional approach does not adequately show improvement over time. With a portfolio assessment
process, the student can keep working on the skill sets until they get them right and this makes the
Ieaming process a continuous process that produces better results in the long run. This is an advantage to
the portfolio system. It allows students to take a few risks, fail, try again, and improve. With the portfolio
assessment I felt that I was building my skill one piece at a time. People learn at different rates, and the
portfolio system allows each student to build their skills without being penalized for poor timing. I know
from my own experiences with this class and this portfolio, that I gained much more fiom methodically

I32

correcting myself in a continuous way, than I did from the hurried pace set by the exam schedule. Other
advantages of the portfolio approach include developing organizational skills, building thematic
relationships, and broadening topical exposures. The things that are appealing about the traditional
method of assessment (an exam based model) are that it takes less work to quantify ( a benefit for the
instructor) and that the judgment of the results are immediate (less work for the student). The portfolio
process helped build my confidence and through repetition, strengthened my basic skills in writing,
reading, and comprehension of written material (reading) and oral material (listening). I selected the
pieces I did to correct the mistakes that I made and have the opportunity to try again. In order to
demonstrate that I can do some of the exercises better than I did the first time. This orientation to any
given project is useful. It is a continuous improvement approach, and one that is enhanced by the
portfolio assessment model. The second reason is to show any improvement made over the course of
seven weeks. By comparing the original draft or assignment with any corrected version, I can see areas
that need further study and also by comparing the corrected version with the original, I can see
(sometimes) the degree of improvement in that area. An example of one portfolio piece that really
helped me practice and Ieam to develop my German skills is the correction of the exam. .. . I am glad that
I put the effort in [the portfolio assignment] because I have noticed improvement in my listening,
reading, and speaking skills.

Student 6: The portfolio assignment is a great way to document each individual’s own progression as
opposed to creating one standard, ole-fashioned way of grading, which is not in tune with the individual.
While it is difficult to meet the different learning needs of every one person, putting together a portfolio
takes into account the individual’s own Ieaming pace and learning styles by comparing their own work
with their own, not grading it against other people’s. .. . Since I kept [my assignments] I was able to
compare my work from early in the class all the way through the end, which was nice.

Student 8: I found that through portfolio development my understanding, fluency, and competence of
German have greatly improved. Portfolio assessments give students an opportunity to showcase their best
work. I believe that it affords students a fairer evaluation of their foreign language abilities by visualizing
their progress. For this particular portfolio, though, I felt that much of the learning that generally
comprises this type of assignment was absent due to the lack of re-editing requirements. I believe that
much more learning could have been fostered had students been forced to correct the mistakes in all of
their non-spoken assignments. Editing and correcting is one method through which I found myself
greatly improving my German competency. While I felt comfortable with the pieces I was allowed to
choose, I was not confident in the quality of the predetermined assignments, especially in the case of the
speaking assignments. Predeterrnined requirements force students to include work that does not
necessarily illustrate their best abilities. I feel that in a class designed like German 201, where reading
and writing are focused on much more than speaking and listening, the percentage value of these required
speaking/listening pieces was far too high.

Student 9: In some ways I have my doubts about this method and on the other hand I have faith that it
works. The fact that a portfolio would allow students to select the very best of their works and submit
them at their final, might not reflect on how they did over the course of their whole semester [because] in
reality it is only a collection of their best works. For instance the portfolio might not calculate how much
the student participated during class or whether or not he/she understood everything. By showing a
student’s best capabilities in a way still remains fair, since the teacher still has the ability to compare and
contrast every student in class. A portfolio is in some ways similar to a standard test system, in that it can
compare the strengths and weaknesses of students.

Student 10: Working on and seeing the progress I’ve made this semester has made me more confident in
my work. [The portfolio] enables the instructor to test on something other than a particular memorization
criteria. Overall, I enjoyed creating a portfolio. It helped me with my German confidence for the most
part. It also helped me look at what progress I actually did make in the class besides just memorizing
each chapter.

133

APPENDIX R: Sample Teacher Feedback and Assessment of an Essay

First Draft including Teacher’s Feedback and Comments

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Aufsatz 2: Wir [machte gin 13¢]an __________________________ _ _ . of Comment: m j
Thema: Postkarte aus East Lansing
2004-05-30
Hallo Eltem,
‘Letze Woche hatte Monika besuchteg Ich habe ihr Ihre Stadt gezeigt. _ LComment: sp 1
[ch fragte Monika was sie m_o__chte gemachert Sie [sagt d_ass_ zum Grand ‘5 f-gLCommont missing pronoun j
Ledge Sandstein Leiste Iiessen wir fnhren ____________________ ‘ memem- verb form I g]
Da [der ,,Ledges“ konnten wir Wandem und ein Picknick machen. \ Comment'
Fuhren wir Ha D_as SPEEQSPII‘FIPICflQdfia? Wetter” war sehr schon. I __ i ‘ you showed her her city? [
Gingen wir [weiter der [Weg. Monika brachste bich [lie Kamera trnd - — — -2 Comment: wo and 3p and verb
wollte das malerisch Gestein fotografiertert. i". \ “m“ ‘ ]
Wir sprachen, lachten, und [reichte hieBl_u_me_n:an_. _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ it", -“\:_,Eomment= verb form 3
Es war sehr schon. ['3‘ ‘ '@ment: wrong verb mu]
LComment W0 3

 

Bis spate! @mment missing prep

“Lamment WO
Eomment: art
LComment: WO

 

you

r!
['3]

 

“I,
I.
I
ll-
O
rim
rv

Sehr gut. Du has! alle wichtigen Elemente in der Postkarte. Deine

 

 

 

 

 

 

Struktur ist gut. :3" 1‘ @mment: case .
Karmst du bitte etwas mehr schreiben? Zwischen 200—250 Worter? “Cw Lemme“- verb form 3
Schreibe mehr r‘iber Sehenswfirdigkeiten die du und Monika besucht 1%[C0mmenn bringen is not 1
haben oder andere A ttraktionen. Was habt ihr beim Picknick ”new"

gegessen? Was habt ihr in Grand Ledge gesehen? “ [c‘m‘meflt end 7
Die Satzstruktur im Deutschen ist: Subjekt + Verb + Objekt, z. 3. Wir ELgomment: verb form j
gingen weiter. [@mmmh 5p :

 

LComment: case
[Comment wo

I
ll
L_J

Final Draft

Aufsatz 2: Wir machte ein Picknick
Thema: Postkarte aus East Lansing
WC: 129

Hallo Eltem,

Letze Woche ha_tt§ Monika besuchten. Ich habe ihr Ihre Stadt gezeigt. Ich fragte Monika was sie mochte
gemachen. Sie sagt dass zum Grand Ledge Sandstein Leiste Iiessen wir fahren.

Da der ,,Ledges“ kOnnten wir Wandem und ein Picknick machen. F uhren wir da. Das Sonne scheinte und
das Wetter w_ar_ sehr schbn.

Gingen wir weiter der Weg. Biem Fluss sind wir gewandert. fiber der Weg ist eine Brfike filr einem Zug.
An dieser Tag hatte drei Zug queren. Monika hat_sich die Kamera mitgebracht und wollte das malerisch
Gestein fotografierten. Es hat sie mehr als filmfzig Fotos gemacht! Ich habe nicht so viel gemacht, aber ich
habe eins oder drei um Monika genommen.

Wir sprachen, lachten, und reichte die Blumen an.

Es war sehr schon.

Bis spater

134

Assessment

Aufsatz 2
“Postkarte aus East Lansing”

Content:

Your essay contains no irrelevant information and is developed in a logical way. It is interesting to read but
you could have included some more details.

18/20

Language Use:

Your essay flows nicely and the coherence between the sentences is good. You barely used any transition
words or conjunctions though. It would add to your sentence variety to use these words, and it would also
make the essay more interesting to read. You used many very short sentences this time. Make them a little
more complex by combining them with conjunctions.

There are occasional errors in word order. Make sure that the conjugated verb always is in second place,
e.g. Wir ginger: weiter. In a subordinate clause, the modal verb will always be last, e.g. Ich fragte sie, was
sie machen machte.

Make sure all verbs agree with the subject in case, number, and gender. Also, remember to put the direct
object in the accusative case and watch for case after prepositions (dative vs. accusative).

Sometimes, you are inconsistent in the use of tenses. You switch between the various past tense forms and
you also had some present tense forms. Make sure to stick to one.

There are no errors that interfere with comprehension.

15/20

Vocabulary:

Your choice and range of words are good with very few errors. You don’t repeatedly use the same words
and there are no English terms. Sometimes, you use inappropriate words, e.g., Ich habe ein Foto von
Monika genommen (I took a picture of Monika); it should be Ich habe ein Foto von Monika gemacht.
You included and marked the required words of the chapter.

17/20

Mechanics: .

Your layout is appropriate. Please indent paragraphs. There are no punctuation or capitalization errors but
some spelling errors. If you can find a German spell checker online it would get rid of these errors. The
length of your essay is below the minimum word count.

17/20

Feedback:

I was unable to assess how you provided feedback and implemented your peer’s feedback since you didn’t
give or receive feedback. I will not take off points for this on this essay (that’s why the feedback is worth
5%; I added 5% to Language Use and 5% to Vocabulary). You added a few more details in your final essay
but you didn’t implement any of my other suggestions, thus there was not much of a change from first to
final draft.

5/20

Grade:

Content 35% 18 3 l .5%

Language Use 40% 15 30%

Vocabulary 15% 17 12.75% 79.75%
Mechanics 5% 17 4.25%

Feedback 5% 5 l .2 5%

135

APPENDIX S: Class and Homework Schedule for Days of Classroom Observations

Week 2: May 24-28

 

 

 

Kommunilcation
in class homework for next class
Tu TEST 1 - picture description 1 due
5/25 - Einstieg in das Thema (32) - Aktivitat E (37)
- Gedankenaustausch (32-33) - read Grammatik 1-8 (258-264)
- Vor dem Lesen (35) - Aktivitat B, C (260, 262)
- Wortkasten (38) - read Vermischtes (40)
- “Standig unter Strom” (36) - read Vor dem Lesen (41)
- explain Chat - read “Gewalt im Femsehen” (40)
- read Wortschatztibungen (43
Th - grammar presentation - Chat 1 due
5/27 - Elvis chapters 4-5 - Aktivitat M, O (44)
- discuss “Gewalt im Femsehen” (4) - read “Barbara Honigmann” (47-48)
- Aktivitat I-L (42-43) - Zum Thema (48)
- lntemet activity Kino - read Grammatik 9-16 (264-270)
- Aktivitat G, l (266, 268)

 

 

 

Week 6: June 21-25

 

 

 

Musik
in class homework for next class
Mo TEST 4 - email Aufsatz 4 draft to instructor by
6/21 Tuesday, 10 am. and bring I copy to class
- Never ending story due
- read “Einstieg in das Thema” (108) and
summarize
Tu - discuss “Einstieg in das Thema” (108) - Aktivitat H, J (119)
6/22 - Gedankenaustausch (109) - read Vermischtes (112)
- Wortschatztlbungen (1 l8) - read Grammatik 1-9 (304-306)
- “Clara Schumann” (110-111) - Aktivitat A, C (306-307)
- Zum Text A, B (111-112) - read “Vor dem Lesen” (112)
- Aufsatz 4 peer review - Chat 3 due

 

 

 

136

 

 

APPENDIX T: Sample Assessment of a Portfolio

SPEAKING

15% (5% grade, 10% progress) 87.8% (grade: 87.5, progress: 88%)

Picture Descriptions: 85%

PD] “Einladung”:

You included many details in your picture description. Most of the words were pronounced accurately. The
only word that you didn’t pronounce correctly was Information. There is no sch-sound in this word, the -
tion at the end is pronounced more like —tsion. Also, keep in mind that German doesn’t have a silent —e (die
Krawattg). Your pronunciation is very good. Your stress and intonation were accurate and there were no
major errors that interfered with comprehension. Your description flowed nicely and there wasn’t much
hesitation.

Your use of words was also accurate and the choice and range of words was good. You didn’t use any
English (besides saying that you couldn’t remember certain words).

Your grammar was good and most of your endings were accurate. Great job! You need to pay attention to
verb conjugation (e.g., er (rage should be er tra'gt or er schriebt should be er schreibt). Also, pay attention
to prepositions. At 8 o’clock translates to um 8 Uhr. ,

You only described picture 1. That was rather confusing. Also, you said once Herr Schmidt rufi Frau
Meyer an. I assume that was a slip of tongue since you referred to Herr Meyer later as Herr Meyer. ©
16/20

PD2 “Joggen”:

This description flowed nicely but once again, you didn’t describe all pictures. It seems as if you described
picture 1, followed by 3, followed by 2. The vocabulary you used was good. You didn’t use any English
terms.

Make sure that every noun is preceded by an article and that the article agrees with the noun in case,
gender, and number. Also, pay attention to case following prepositions. Your subject-verb-agreement was
good.

You used many times the word so at the beginning of sentences. That’s very English. In German, you
would use also instead.

Unfortunately, the recording stopped in the middle of a sentence.

17/20

PD 3” Ausflug”:

This description was very detailed and the vocabulary you used was great. It was very creative to
implement direct speech. You didn’t use many English terms. Sandwiches is OK to use in German. The
German expression would be belegte Brote. The German words for butter, jam, and knife are die Butter, die
Marmelade, and das Messer. Also, once you corrected yourself when you used English. Very good. Why
do you always only describe the first picture though?

In this description, you corrected your grammar. Very good. You seem to be more aware of grammar now.
You had some repetitive agreement errors (die Kinder is plural). Make sure to put the direct object of a
sentence in the accusative case. Also, you had some verb conjugation errors.

18/20

Interview with native speaker: 90%
You covered all the requirements and your interview flowed nicely. You added a nice introduction and end

to the interview. You hesitated when reading your questions and there is a detectable English accent in your
pronunciation (e.g., von, unterscheidlich, Prozent) but you tried to correct yourself/repeated the word in
question when mispronouncing something. Sehr gut! Apart from the hesitation, your intonation and stress
were accurate.

There were no errors that interfered with comprehension and you asked the native speaker to repeat what he
had said when you didn’t understand something.

You were able to make general statements (e.g., about the native speaker’s ability to speak English) and
you were able to repeat a question when the native speaker asked you to. You reacted to all his statements
in German. Sehr gut.

137

Your range and choice of words was accurate. Also, you went beyond the mere asking of your five
questions; you asked additional extended questions to clarify a point, however, sometimes with errors in
word order and some hesitation. You were able to converse with him. Sehr gut!

You had some problems with word order and word endings (cases).

Progmss: 88%

You improved steadily from picture description one to description three. You had fewer problems with
fluency and grammar and your range of vocabulary expanded. You were able to correct your own errors
towards the end, which shows your awareness of grammar.

In general, your speaking skills are good. Your pronunciation is very good, just keep working on expanding
your vocabulary and pay attention to case endings and verb conjugations.

LISTENING

15% (10% grade, 5% progress) 80.7% (grade: 77%, progress: 88%)

Interview summm: 70%

Your interview summary contains the general information the native speaker talked about. There are some
important details he stated repeatedly that you didn’t include. Also, the native speaker never mentioned
some of the answers you provided (e.g., answers to questions 1, 4 and 5 are only partially correct) and you
didn’t answer question 2 at all. You turned it in really late which is why I can’t give you full credit for it.
You caught some of the native speaker’s jokes and you were able to repeat to the questions he asked you,
which is an indicator for good comprehension skills.

Midterm summa_ry: 100%
You wrote a detailed summary of your peer’s topic and your answers to your three questions are accurate.

Great job!

Listening comprehension worksheets:
You had 60% of all answers correct.

Make sure to read the questions. Sometimes, there were two parts to a question and you only answered the
first one and sometimes I asked for a certain number of things (e. g., worksheet 2, question 1, name of the
fi‘iend) and you wrote down more or less than asked for.

Progress: 88%

You improved fi'om the first to the third listening comprehension worksheet by 25%. That’s very good.
You got a 81% on the listening final. Maybe you tried too hard on the other two assignments. Listening to a
text too many times may sometimes not be the best thing.

In general, your listening skills improved this semester. Towards the end, you were able to catch more
details.

REFLECTIVE ESSAY

10% 100%

You addressed all required issues sufficiently with detailed explanations. It was very interesting to read and
your comments will help me in the future to improve portfolio assessment. Greatjob!

WRITING

10% (5% chat corrections, 5% essay progress) 85%

Chat; 80%

The way you corrected the chat was confusing. It is difficult for me to see what you corrected and what you
didn’t, since you didn’t mark the corrections in your final version.

You corrected most of the errors I marked on the first two pages of your chat. However, some of your
corrections were incorrect and you didn’t state the rule for why something was wrong.

I38

Essay: 90%

You improved a lot from your first draft to your final draft but you barely included the feedback I gave you
on the draft you turned in. You implemented your peer’s suggestions and you found many errors yourself.
Your final draft would have been even better, had you included my feedback.

READING

5% (synthesis and accuracy: 2.5% Elvis, 2.5% lntemet) 95.5%

Elvis: 95%

Your summary is short but precise. It contains the most important information from the chapter.

lntemet: 96%

You seemed to have no problems with understanding the information on the webpage and extracting the
information you needed to complete the assignment. Your answers contain the most important details and
are mostly accurate.

 

UNIT TEST

5% (corrections) 95%

You corrected most errors and your explanations were great. In “LA, you mixed halten and Ieisten. The
first means “to consider” (Many East Germans consider it to be the most important goal to create jobs.) and
the second means “to afford” (People with little money can’t afford many consumer goods). In III.C, you
didn’t correct all your errors. The ones you corrected were wrong. 2 should be mein Statistikkurs since it is
the subject of the subordinate clause and therefore needs to be the nominative, 4 is incorrect since the
conjugated verb following a subordinate conjunction (weil) goes last. In IV.C2, F amilie is singular so the
verb form needs to be in the singular, too. D2 is the same error as in III.C. The conjugated verb moves to
the end in a dependent clause when the conjunction is subordinating. The correct answer for D3 is um “in
order to.” E3 is als because two actions took place at the same time in the past. The separation of Germany
was not an habitual event. You didn’t make corrections on section V.

LAYOUT

40%

Inclusion of all assignments 75% 75%

Title page 5% 5%

Table of contents 5% 5%

Arrangement of assignments 5% 5% 100%

(some chapter title pages are missing)
Reflection of Ieaming/progress 10% 10%

GRADE

Speaking (15%) 87.8% 1317

Listening (15%) 80.7% 1210.5

Essay (10%) 100% 1000

Writing (10%) 85% 850 93.3%
Reading (5%) 95.5% 477.5

Unit Test (5%) 95% 475

Layout (40%) 100% 4000

139

BIBLIOGRAPHY

140

BIBLIOGRAPHY

American Council for the Teaching of Foreign Languages (1999a). ACT FL Proficiency
Guidelines. Retrieved May 1,2004, from
http: //www. sil. org/11ngualmks/LANGUAGELEARN IN G/OtherResources/ACTF
LProficiencyGuidelines/contents.htm

American Council for the Teaching of Foreign Languages (199%). National Standards
for Foreign Language Education. Retrieved May 1, 2004, from
http://www.yearoflanguages.org/i4a/pages/index.cfm?pageid=3392

Arter, J ., & Spandel, V. (1992). NCME Instructional Module: Using Portfolios of
Student Work in Instruction and Assessment. Educational Measurement: Issues
and Practice, 11 (1), 36-44.

Banta, T. (2003). Introduction: Why Portfolios? In: T. Banta (Ed.), PorJolio
Assessment: Uses, Cases, Scoring, and Impact (pp. 1—5). San Francisco: Jossey-
Bass.

Barnhardt, S., & Kevorkian, J. (1999). Portfolio Assessment: Time Management Tips.
The NCLRC Language Resource, March 1999. Retrieved April 7, 2004, from
http:/lwww.nclrc.org/caidlr32.htrn#BMI

Berg, C. (1999). Preparing ESL Students for peer response. TESOL Journal, 8, 20-25.

Brinton, D., Snow, M. & Wesche, M. (1989). Content-based second language
instruction. New York: Newbury House Publishers.

Brown, J ., & Hudson, T. (1998). The Alternatives in Language Assessment. TESOL
Quarterly, 32 (4), 653-675.

Cook-Benjamin, L. (2003). Portfolio Assessment: Benefits, Issues of Implementation,
and Reflections on Its User. In: T. Banta (Ed), Portfolio Assessment: Uses,
Cases, Scoring, and Impact (pp. 11-15). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Darling-Hammond, L. (1994). Performance-based Assessment and Educational Equity.
Harvard Educational Review, 64 (1), 5-26.

Darling-Hammond, L., & Ancess, J. (1996). Authentic Assessment and School
Development. In: J. Baron & D. Wolf (Eds), Performance-based student
assessment: Challenges and possibilities (pp. 52-83). Cambridge: CUP.

Felix & Theo (1999). Elvis in Koln. Berlin: Langenscheidt.

141

Ferris, D. (2003). Responding to writing. In: B. Kroll (Ed.), Exploring the Dynamics of
Second Language Writing (pp. 119-140). Cambridge: CUP.

Fraenkel, J., & Wallen, N. (2003). How to design and evaluate research in education.
Boston: McGraw Hill.

Frazier, D., & Paulson, F. (1992). How portfolios motivate reluctant writers.
Educational Leadership, 49 (8), 62-65.

Fuchs, M., Fletcher, M., & Birt, D. (1986). Around the World: Pictures for Practice,
Book 2. White Plains: Longman.

Garcia, G., & Pearson, P. (1994). Assessment and diversity. Review of Research in
Education, 20, 337—391.

Gardner, H. (1992). Assessment in Context. In: B. Gifford & M. O’Connor (Eds),
Changing assessments. Alternative views of aptitude, achievement and instruction
(pp. 77-119). Norwell: Kluwer Academic.

Gitomer, D., & Duschl, R. (1995). Moving toward a portfolio culture in education.
Rosedale: Center for Performance Assessment, Educational Testing Service.

Goldstein, L., & Conrad, S. (1990). Student input and negotiation of meaning in ESL
writing conferences. TESOL Quarterly, 24, 443-460.

GRM 201 Second-Year German I. (n.d.). Retrieved March 1, 2005, from
http://ntwebl .ais.msu.edu/j41 00/ scripts/ CatalogRequest.asp?SubjectCode=GRM
&CourseNumber=201

Hairston, M. (1984). The winds of change: Thomas Kuhn and the revolution in the
teaching of writing. In: R. Graves (Ed.), Rhetoric and Composition: A
Sourcebook for Teachers and Writers (pp. 14-26). Upper Montclair:
Boyton/Cook.

Hamp-Lyons, L. (1991). Assessing Second Language Writing in Academic Contexts.
Norwood: Ablex.

Heaton, J. (1966). Composition Through Pictures. Harlow: Longman.

Huerta-Macias, A. (1995). Alternative Assessment: Responses to Commonly Asked
Questions. TESOL Journal, 5 (1), 8-11.

Hyland, K. (2003). Second Language Writing. Cambridge: CUP.

Kearns, D. (1988). A business perspective on American schooling. Education Week,
April 20, 1988. Retrieved March 2, 2005, from

142

http://www.edweek.org/ew/articles/ 1 988/04/20/ 3 0kearns.h07.html?querystring=b
usiness%20perspective

Kevorkian, J. (1997). Rationale for Adopting Portfolio Assessment in the Foreign
Language Classroom. The NCLRC Language Resource, May 1997. Retrieved
April 7, 2004, from http://www.nclrc.org/caidlrl4.htm#BM3

Koretz, D., Stecher, B., & Deibert, E. (1993). The reliability of scores from the 1992
Vermont portfolio assessment program. Los Angeles: Center for the Study of
Evaluation.

Language Learning Center, Michigan State University (2004). Audio Portfolios.
Retrieved May 1, 2004, from http://distancelearning.llc.msu.edu/audioportfolio/

Maki, P. (2004). Assessing for Learning: Building a Sustainable Commitment Across the
Institution. Sterling: Stylus Publishing.

McGroarty, M., & Zhu, W. (1997). Triangulation in classroom research: A study of peer
revision. Language Learning, 47, 1-43.

Ministry of Education, Israel (1998). Reading Strategies Assessment Tool. Retrieved
April 7, 2004, from http://www.anglit.net/main/portfolio/app3-l .htm

Moeller, J., & Adolph, W., & Mabee, B., & Berger, S. (2002). Kaleidoskop: Kultur,
Literatur und Grammatik (6th ed.). Boston: Houghton Mifflin Company.

Moss, P. et a1. (1992). Portfolios, Accountability, and an Interpretive Approach to
validity. Educational Measurement: Issues and Practice, 11 (3), 12-21.

MS U German Undergraduate Studies. (n.d.). Retrieved March 1, 2005, from
http://www.msu.edu/~linglang/german/undergr.htm

MSU Schedule Of Courses. (n.d.). Retrieved March I, 2005, from
http://ntweb8.aismsu.edu/ScheduleBook/schedule.asp

NCLRC (l997a). C lasswork in My Foreign Language Class: Self-Assessment.
Retrieved April 7, 2004, from
http://www.nclrc.org/portfolio/formClassworkForeignLanguageClasshtml

NCLRC (1997b). Portfolio Assessment. Retrieved April 7, 2004, from
http://www.nclrc.org/Catesot.htm

NCLRC (l997c). Sample Learning Strategies Questionnaire for Speaking. Retrieved
April 7, 2004, from http://www.nclrc.org/portfolio/fonnRussianSample2.html

143

NCLRC (1997d). Writing Rubric: Self-Assessment. Retrieved April 7, 2004, from
http://www.nclrc.org/portfolio/formWritingRubric.html

Nunan, D. (1991). Communicative tasks and the language curriculum. TESOL
Quarterly, 25 (2), 279-295.

Padilla, A. et al. (1996). Development and Implementation of Student Portfolios in
Foreign Language Programs. Foreign Language Annals, 29 (3), 429-438.

Patton, M. (2002). Qualitative evaluation and research methods. Thousand Oaks: Sage
Publications.

Ponte, E. (2000). Negotiating Portfolio Assessment in a Foreign Language Classroom.
Ann Arbor: UMI.

Resnick, J., & Resnick D. (1992). Assessing the thinking curriculum: New tools for
educational reform. In: B. Gifford & M. O’Connor (Eds), Changing
assessments. Alternative views of aptitude, achievement and instruction (pp. 37-
75). Norwell: Kluwer Academic.

Richards, J. & Rodgers, T. (2001). Approaches and Methods in Language Teaching.
Cambridge: CUP.

Spicuzza, F., & Cunningham, M. (2003). Validating Recognition and Production
Measures for the Bachelor of Science in Social Work. In: T. Banta (Ed.),
Portfolio Assessment: Uses, Cases, Scoring, and Impact (pp. 59-63). San
Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Siidverlag (n.d.). Vater und Sohn. Retrieved June 18, 2004, from
http://www.vaterundsohn.de/mail/karte.asp?WKorbUID=l 89022 I 00

Supovitz, J ., & Brennan, R. (1997). Mirror, mirror on the wall, which is the fairest test of
all? An examination of the equitability of portfolio assessment relative to
standardized test. Harvard Educational Review, 67, 472-505.

Susser, B. (1994). Process approaches in ESL/EFL writing instruction. Journal of
Second Language Writing, 3, 31-48.

TESOL, Inc. (n.d.). Qualitative Research: Case Study Guidelines. Retrieved April 8,
2005, from
http://www.tesol.org/s_tesol/sec_document.asp?TrackID=&SID= l &DID=2 l 53&
CID=476&VID=2&RTID=0&CIDQS=&Taxonomy=-False&specialSearch=False

Valencia, S. (1990). A portfolio approach to classroom reading assessment: The whys,
whats, and hows. The Reading Teacher, 43 (4), 338-340.

144

Valencia, S., & Calfee, R. (1991). The Development and Use of Literacy Portfolios for
Students, Classes, and Teachers. Applied Measurement in Education, 4 (4), 333-
345.

Valencia, S., & Place, N. (1994). Portfolios: A process for enhancing teaching and
Ieaming. Reading Teacher, 47, 666-669.

Welles, E. (2004). Foreign Language Enrollments in United States Institutions of Higher
Education, Fall 2002. ADFL Bulletin, 35 (2-3), 7-26.

Wiggins, G. (1989). Teaching to the (authentic) test. Educational Leadership, 46 (7),
41-47.

Yancey, K. (1996). Dialogue, Interplay, and Discovery: Mapping the Role and the
Rhetoric of Reflection in Portfolio Assessment. In: R. Calfee & P. Perfumo
(Eds), Writing Portfolios in the Classroom: Policy and Practice, Promise and
Peril (00. 83-102). Mahwah: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

145

Illllllllllllllllll