This article was downloaded by: [Memorial University of Newfoundland] On: 18 July 2014, At: 02:44 Publisher: Routledge Informa Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registered office: Mortimer House, 37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education Publication details, including instructions for authors and subscription information: http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/caeh20 Promoting self-regulated learning through portfolio assessment: testimony and recommendations Ricky Lam a a Department of Education Studies, Hong Kong Baptist University, Hong Kong, China Published online: 26 Nov 2013. To cite this article: Ricky Lam (2014) Promoting self-regulated learning through portfolio assessment: testimony and recommendations, Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 39:6, 699-714, DOI: 10.1080/02602938.2013.862211 To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/02602938.2013.862211 PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE Taylor & Francis makes every effort to ensure the accuracy of all the information (the “Content”) contained in the publications on our platform. However, Taylor & Francis, our agents, and our licensors make no representations or warranties whatsoever as to the accuracy, completeness, or suitability for any purpose of the Content. Any opinions and views expressed in this publication are the opinions and views of the authors, and are not the views of or endorsed by Taylor & Francis. The accuracy of the Content should not be relied upon and should be independently verified with primary sources of information. Taylor and Francis shall not be liable for any losses, actions, claims, proceedings, demands, costs, expenses, damages, and other liabilities whatsoever or howsoever caused arising directly or indirectly in connection with, in relation to or arising out of the use of the Content. This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes. Any substantial or systematic reproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan, sub-licensing, systematic supply, or distribution in any form to anyone is expressly forbidden. Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms- and-conditions
Transcript
This article was downloaded by: [Memorial University of Newfoundland]On: 18 July 2014, At: 02:44Publisher: RoutledgeInforma Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registeredoffice: Mortimer House, 37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK
Assessment & Evaluation in HigherEducationPublication details, including instructions for authors andsubscription information:http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/caeh20
Promoting self-regulated learningthrough portfolio assessment:testimony and recommendationsRicky Lama
a Department of Education Studies, Hong Kong Baptist University,Hong Kong, ChinaPublished online: 26 Nov 2013.
To cite this article: Ricky Lam (2014) Promoting self-regulated learning through portfolioassessment: testimony and recommendations, Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 39:6,699-714, DOI: 10.1080/02602938.2013.862211
To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/02602938.2013.862211
PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE
Taylor & Francis makes every effort to ensure the accuracy of all the information (the“Content”) contained in the publications on our platform. However, Taylor & Francis,our agents, and our licensors make no representations or warranties whatsoever as tothe accuracy, completeness, or suitability for any purpose of the Content. Any opinionsand views expressed in this publication are the opinions and views of the authors,and are not the views of or endorsed by Taylor & Francis. The accuracy of the Contentshould not be relied upon and should be independently verified with primary sourcesof information. Taylor and Francis shall not be liable for any losses, actions, claims,proceedings, demands, costs, expenses, damages, and other liabilities whatsoever orhowsoever caused arising directly or indirectly in connection with, in relation to or arisingout of the use of the Content.
This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes. Anysubstantial or systematic reproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan, sub-licensing,systematic supply, or distribution in any form to anyone is expressly forbidden. Terms &Conditions of access and use can be found at http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions
Promoting self-regulated learning through portfolio assessment:testimony and recommendations
Ricky Lam*
Department of Education Studies, Hong Kong Baptist University, Hong Kong, China
Portfolio assessment (PA) has been extensively adopted for writing developmentin the past three decades. Much research on PA primarily investigates students’and teachers’ perceptions of its benefits, and how it influences students’ motiva-tion and general writing abilities. Despite its purported effectiveness, not muchhas been done to understand the relationship between PA and self-regulatedlearning (SRL) especially in English as a Foreign Language (EFL) or English asa Second Language (ESL) writing research. This paper contends that PA canproductively foster SRL in EFL writing classrooms, and, more specifically, itdevelops a conceptual model of SRL within the context of writing portfolios anditerative feedback processes. Supporting evidence emphasising how PA can facil-itate SRL is discussed and evaluated. The paper ends with six recommendationsand implications proposing how SRL can be promulgated in EFL portfolio-basedcontexts. Finally, possible future research is suggested.
Portfolios can be defined as a purposeful collection of students’ artefacts createdover time to display their efforts, growth and achievements to themselves,teachers, parents and other key stakeholders (Genesee and Upshur 1996). Inwriting research, portfolios are used for a myriad of purposes, for example, astools for teaching, learning and assessment of writing in English as a ForeignLanguage (EFL) and English as a Second Language (ESL) settings (Delett,Barnhardt, and Kevorkian 2001; Hamp-Lyons and Condon 2000). They can beused as one form of classroom-based writing assessment and as a large-scale man-datory evaluation system for the purpose of certification. In this paper, portfolioassessment (PA) concerns how individual EFL writing teachers develop andimplement their portfolio (PA) models in fostering student ability to self-regulatetheir learning. To this end, self-regulated learning (SRL) is of utmost educationalimportance, since its rationale is the encouragement of learner independence andself-monitoring in the learning process at different stages of schooling. SRL refersto a learner’s capacity to monitor knowledge, strategies and motivational beliefs inachieving the target learning outcome against a set of self-directed goals(Nicol and Macfarlane-Dick 2006).
The benefits of PA in EFL composition research are well documented – e.g.enhanced motivation and improved writing ability (Fox and Hartwick 2011; Lam2013a) – yet this research evidence does not explicitly explain how learnersbecome more responsible in managing their learning after the exposure to theportfolio approach (Hamp-Lyons 2006). Undoubtedly, it is believed that using PAat classroom level can generally facilitate learning of writing and promote the for-mative potential of the learning process (e.g. multiple drafting, collaborative writ-ing and peer assessment), as opposed to the learning products (e.g. final drafts ofcompositions: Lam and Lee 2010). Nonetheless, this belief is primarily rooted inwriting scholars’ and teachers’ enthusiasm that students may have cognitive (bet-ter composing strategies), linguistic (enhanced writing ability) and affective(increased self-efficacy) improvement through various aspects of the portfoliocompilation (Hamp-Lyons and Condon 2000). Despite the benefits of PA, researchthat supports its use as a productive learning-cum-assessment tool in promotingSRL remains inadequate, especially the development of a conceptual model illus-trating the interplay between PA and SRL in EFL writing settings.
Another issue is that most studies have hitherto investigated how PA emphasis-ing SRL influences EFL students’ attitudes and perceptions towards writing in theirlearning contexts (e.g. Aydin 2010), rather than how it directly impacts on their writ-ing development. Other research examines whether PA is a better alternative forEFL students, who may be more likely to pass the exit requirements of the freshmancomposition course than timed essay tests (Hamp-Lyons 1996; Song and August2002). Beyond writing classrooms, research on large-scale PA predominantly inves-tigates the comparison of its reliability and viability of scoring methods with thoseof the timed essay testing (Koretz 1998; Willard-Traub et al. 1999). Despite thisscholarship, Hamp-Lyons and Condon (2000) and Lam (2013a) call for thedevelopment of a sound theoretical framework of PA that can validate differentclaims advocated by scholars, and illuminate how SRL, promoted in portfolio-basedclassrooms, can have impacts on the teaching, learning and assessment of writing.
Aim of the paper
The paper argues how PA can foster SRL in EFL writing contexts, and, more specif-ically, develops a conceptual model of SRL in relation to the portfolio compilationand iterative feedback processes.
Reviewing the framework of PA
In order to review the framework of PA in relation to SRL, the four qualities of testusefulness from Bachman and Palmer’s (1996) model were adopted: validity, reli-ability, washback and practicality. Test usefulness refers to a set of parameters thatevaluate all aspects of test development and use in any authentic context. Test use-fulness is operationalised in a specific testing situation: PA, in this paper, takes placein an academic writing environment (e.g. semester-long or year-long college compo-sition courses) where the process approach to writing instruction is utilised, includ-ing planning, drafting, conferencing, revision and publishing, and the instruction isgenre-based, focusing on the purpose and situation of different genres as revealed in
700 R. Lam
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Mem
oria
l Uni
vers
ity o
f N
ewfo
undl
and]
at 0
2:44
18
July
201
4
their lexico-grammatical and schematic structures (Badger and White 2000). Whenreviewing the four qualities, the emphasis is placed on their combined effects on theoverall usefulness of PA, rather than on the tension among the individual qualities(e.g. reliability vs. validity).
Validity
Validity refers to whether a test measures what it intends to measure. Withinportfolio-based classrooms, students are allowed to work and re-work their drafts,based upon multiple sources of feedback, until the quality of texts is improvedbefore submission. As opposed to impromptu timed essay testing, PA can assess stu-dent writing ability continuously in an authentic context, since writing under theexamination condition does not reflect how learners have experienced an array ofrecursive composing processes, namely, from planning to text revision. The reflec-tive elements of PA (i.e. selection and reflection) can also reinforce student responsi-bility in taking charge of their learning (e.g. development of SRL) in the writingclassroom. For instance, students may have more time and space to develop anawareness of purpose and audienceship of their texts through multiple drafting andteacher feedback. Undeniably, PA is a more valid measure of student writing abilitythan the single-text approach to writing assessment (Brown and Hudson 1998;Gearhart and Herman 1998).
Reliability
Reliability is concerned with the consistency of scoring in a test. Regardlessof the low inter-rater reliability in large-scale portfolio scoring, this problemcan be overcome when PA is used at the classroom level via the constructionof well-defined rubrics and the control of portfolio contents (Weigle 2002).The use of formative feedback during the portfolio process can validate whya grade is assigned for a writing portfolio, and promote SRL by helping stu-dents to uptake the feedback information for subsequent revisions. Althoughthere are tensions between reliability and validity in PA, White (1994) sug-gests that these two qualities are not mutually exclusive, given that reliabilityis a necessary condition for validity, and thus for test usefulness. However,Bachman and Palmer (1996, 23) argue that reliability may not be prerequisiteto either validity or usefulness, by using an example of a multiple-choice testof grammar as a placement test for an academic writing course to illustratehow reliability is achieved but not validity.
Washback
Washback is the impact of a test on the processes of learning and instruction. It alsoinfluences broader educational practices and beliefs. For PA, its impact on learningand instruction is considered positive, since it can mitigate test anxiety (e.g. delayedevaluation of final drafts), and promote teacher professionalism by encouraging regu-lar response to student writing and the adoption of SRL in the writing classrooms(Brown 2004). While PA may have transformative impact on the use of teaching
Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education 701
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Mem
oria
l Uni
vers
ity o
f N
ewfo
undl
and]
at 0
2:44
18
July
201
4
materials and pedagogical styles, scholars have warned of the simplistic view ofwashback, and have argued that a ‘progressive’ assessment approach may not neces-sarily have a direct influence on learning and instructional practices (Alderson andHamp-Lyons 1996; Qi 2007). Despite this, it is hoped that PA can exert beneficialinfluences on student writing development by providing them with wider exposure toauthentic writing situations, where the process of writing (i.e. planning, drafting, andrevising) and metacognitive writing strategies (i.e. reflection and self-monitoring) areemphasised so that a positive washback is achieved.
Practicality
Practicality is the extent to which a test is manageable for teachers and students. Forteachers, time and extra work would be the major stumbling block for PA to beimplemented in their work contexts. For students, participation in PA means takingup their valuable learning time, since the portfolio compilation is labour-intensive,involving their efforts and commitment in various stages of the writing process.However, it can be argued that equipping students with capacity in planning, moni-toring and evaluating their growth in writing via portfolios is likely to facilitate thedevelopment of SRL and reduce parts of teachers’ workload, including preventionof basic grammatical errors through self-editing and peer assessment, and generalimprovement in text organisation through frequent revisions. Although practicalityremains a disadvantage to PA (e.g. time factor), its rationale should be explicitlycommunicated to students, so that they understand that PA can help them becomemore self-regulated in the learning of writing, and develop their identity as emergingwriters.
PA, with a focus on SRL, does largely fulfil the four qualities of test usefulness,and utilises its reflective elements, formative feedback (rubrics) and positive wash-back on self-monitoring in facilitating learner development of SRL, despite the pos-sible challenge of practicality when adopted in the EFL writing contexts.
A conceptual model of SRL
Principles of PA
As an alternative to EFL writing assessment, PA is considered a response to the pro-cess instruction (e.g. process writing) which has become popular since the 1980s(Belanoff and Dickson 1991; Huot 2002). According to Hamp-Lyons and Condon(2000), PA consists of nine basic principles, among which four elements are keyrelevance to the development of SRL in student writing: collection, reflection,selection and delayed evaluation. In an academic writing course, PA is a collectionof students’ works-in-progress and final drafts that they have created over time. Italso involves reflection upon and selection of the drafts to be included in a portfolioto demonstrate their best abilities and efforts in relation to the assessment criteria.The reflective element in PA usually includes regular documentation of the growthprocess during the portfolio compilation via self-assessment, cover letters orreflective journals. The characteristic of reflection is at the centre of PA, since itassists students to diagnose the strengths and weaknesses of their writingdevelopment, and to promulgate self-assessment skills that emphasiseself-monitoring in the composing process.
702 R. Lam
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Mem
oria
l Uni
vers
ity o
f N
ewfo
undl
and]
at 0
2:44
18
July
201
4
The other key component of PA is delayed evaluation, which refers to gradesbeing only assigned to the final drafts. It may promote reflection, text revisions andwriting improvement, as opposed to the general features of the product-based writ-ing classrooms (e.g. the one-draft one-reader approach). Hamp-Lyons (1996, 2003)has argued that delayed evaluation in PA is particularly advantageous to EFL stu-dents, who usually perform much less satisfactorily than their first language counter-parts in areas of linguistic accuracy and text organisation in timed essay tests.
Theoretical framework of SRL
SRL usually implies autonomy and student-centred control in the course of learning.It has multifarious definitions owing to its complex nature as an educational con-struct. Simply put, SRL can be defined as a series of self-directed thoughts, feelingsand actions aiming towards attainment of the learner’s goals (Boekaerts 1999, 446).In EFL writing, a self-regulated learner refers to an individual who can monitor andregulate his/her own ideas, and writing behaviours against the set goals towards textimprovement through revisions (Cresswell 2000).
In this paper, the SRL framework has been adapted from Butler and Winne’s(1995) conceptual model in relation to feedback process, and will be integrated withthe principles of PA. The modified conceptual model of SRL in a context of class-room-based PA is illustrated in Figure 1. In the model, once the portfolio tasks areassigned to students in an academic writing course in Step 1, they attempt to retrieveknowledge from their schemata, including text knowledge, strategy knowledge andmotivational beliefs (Step 2). Then, students may set attainable goals (Step 3) andemploy relevant composing strategies (Step 4) to tackle different portfolio tasks (i.e.different genres of writing and reflective journals). They also perform self-assessmentregularly to review whether their writing performance and composing strategiesmatch with their individualised goals (Step 5). Because of the portfolio requirements,students are expected to collect, reflect and select the best works to demonstrate theirefforts, writing abilities and achievements during the portfolio process (Step 6). Forthe components of collection, reflection and selection, they are a series of self-moni-toring processes described in Steps 1–5.
These recursive mechanisms trigger the creation of self-generated feedback,namely internal feedback for further engagement with the interim drafts collated forthe portfolio (Step 7). The student-generated internal feedback includes cognitive(genre knowledge), affective (self-efficacy) and behavioural (revision) dimensions.This internal feedback can help students to decide which portfolio entry doesrepresent their best writing ability, and, with continuous effort throughout thesemester, how these entries could be successfully upgraded with external feedback(Step 8). The externally provided feedback refers to linguistic assistance from peersand/or the teacher. However, it can also refer to resources sought by the studentsindependently through the use of dictionaries, library search, and related printed andonline reference materials.
In Step 9, delayed evaluation provides students with opportunities for incorporat-ing both internal (self-generated) and external feedback into their interim drafts.Formative feedback serves to make students reinterpret how to cope with the portfo-lio tasks, revisit the set goals and revamp the use of other composing strategies.Nonetheless, incorporating formative feedback into the portfolio process may notnecessarily warrant productive SRL, since feedback information from peers and the
Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education 703
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Mem
oria
l Uni
vers
ity o
f N
ewfo
undl
and]
at 0
2:44
18
July
201
4
teacher may be misguided due to its inaccuracy, ambiguity and evaluative nature(e.g. grades or marks: Lam 2013a; Tsui and Ng 2000). Similarly, internal feedbackwithin student cognition may not promote self-monitoring processes, given that thisself-generated feedback is heavily influenced by student beliefs about the teachingand learning of writing (Butler and Winne 1995). For instance, if an EFL student isgrade-conscious and used to form-focused instruction, they will only focus on errorfeedback and test outcome, rather than written commentary and actual learning ofwriting, when revising (Lee 2007). To this end, the student prefers surface learningto SRL, which is more likely to bring about text improvement as a result of the self-monitoring processes in PA (i.e. collection, reflection, and selection).
The relationship between PA, SRL and feedback
Paris and Paris (2001) have argued that there are two contrasting models of SRL –the transmission model (behaviourist) and the developmental model (constructivist).The transmission model refers to teacher explicit instruction in SRL skills, includingself-assessment (Lam 2010a) and peer response strategies (Lam 2010b), in the EFLportfolio-oriented classrooms. The benefit of this model is that students are providedwith appropriate training before they venture into self-monitoring their works-in-pro-gress. However, scholars have questioned whether students can automatically masterSRL skills, given that they could simply follow instructed strategies acquired fromthe portfolio pedagogy instead of learning how to self-regulate their composing
Student internal cognition
Interim drafts collated for portfolios
Text knowledge (Awareness of audience; text structure in terms of field, mode & tenor)
Figure 1. An adapted conceptual model of self-regulated learning in a context of portfolioassessment (Butler and Winne 1995).
704 R. Lam
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Mem
oria
l Uni
vers
ity o
f N
ewfo
undl
and]
at 0
2:44
18
July
201
4
processes by themselves. But, this is indeed the very nature of SRL, about which itis difficult to make any definitive claims.
For the developmental model of SRL, students would develop the ability to self-regulate gradually when they interact with peers through performing academic activ-ities (e.g. written peer review), and when they become intellectually mature toassume more control and agency in the learning process (De Guerrero and Villamil2000; Lam 2013b). In this view, SRL is considered a set of rational behavioursmotivated by learners’ desires to be recognised as having specific writer identities(Paris, Byrnes, and Paris 2001; Park 2013). For example, if an EFL student aspiresto be a conscientious writer, they must set a short-term goal and employ relevantcomposing strategies to enhance the overall quality of their texts, including consider-ations of accuracy, content, audienceship, text structure and register when collatingtheir writing portfolio. Such self-monitoring processes make the student becomemore self-regulated in developing his/her projected writer identity (e.g. self as agood author), and seeing writing as a way of knowing his/her strengths and weak-nesses in foreign language development.
In the context of PA, it appears that feedback has a crucial role to play in pro-moting SRL among students who actively engage in the composing process, be itself-generated or externally provided feedback. However, writing teachers andresearchers cannot assume that their students can automatically pick up SRL skillswhen actively participating in the portfolio process. Students with diverse knowl-edge backgrounds, motivational beliefs and prior learning experience sometimesmay not be able to generate internal feedback after repeated attempts to reflect uponand self-evaluate the use of composing strategies in relation to the set goals duringthe SRL process, nor may they be able to decode and act upon peer and/or teacherfeedback (Hirvela and Sweetland 2005; Hyland 2011).
Empirical evidence has shown that EFL students consider teacher feedbackfrom PA as directives (Richardson 2000), and that for some it is difficult tounderstand the content of peer and teacher feedback when performing revisions fordifferent portfolio tasks (Hamp-Lyons 2006; Lam 2013a). To foster SRL, it issuggested that the provision of continuous training in how to comprehend and actupon different sources of feedback is significant, given that most EFL studentswere brought up in a product-based teaching and learning context, where they are,as a common practice, not expected to take up active roles in learning writing(Lam 2013b; Lee 2011).
Despite the usefulness of revision strategy instruction, Sengupta (1998, 2000)has warned of the problematic relationship between revision process (the SRL pro-cess as exemplified in PA) and text improvement in EFL process-oriented writingcontexts. She argues that redrafting, with the incorporation of peer and/or teacherfeedback into revision, may not guarantee improved text quality. In the long run,EFL students need to develop a legitimate writer identity (self as author not test-taker), in which they can have stronger ownership in the portfolio process, anddevelop agency over the learning of writing (i.e. the developmental model of SRL)via the use of both internal and external sources of feedback to facilitate textimprovement.
Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education 705
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Mem
oria
l Uni
vers
ity o
f N
ewfo
undl
and]
at 0
2:44
18
July
201
4
Testimony supporting how PA promotes SRL
SRL and reflection
Reflection and self-monitoring are the key components in PA, which make portfoliosdifferent from ordinary writing folders, in which students haphazardly put theirwritten drafts (Coombe and Barlow 2004). In PA, the emphasis on students’development of SRL skills enables them to revise their initial and interim drafts withself-generated and externally provided feedback, and to reflect upon the entirecomposing process. Huot (2002) and Lee (2007) have argued that in EFL writingcontexts, the focus of correctness in texts outweighs the attention to ideadevelopment and rhetorical awareness. The preoccupation with text correctnessprimarily lies in the writing typically being assessed for its accuracy rather thanrhetorical conventions or high-order learning skills (e.g. reflection: Lee 2008; Lo2010). Additionally, in most product-based classrooms, composing processes thatpromulgate SRL, including reflection, revision and writing development are rarelytaught and assessed (Sengupta 2000; Weigle 2007). In order to evaluate the processof writing (e.g. including SRL), PA should serve as a more valid and authenticassessment tool than timed essay examinations.
Ziegler and Moeller’s (2012) quantitative study has shown that LinguaFolio, theUS version of the European Language Portfolio, used as an intervention to languagelearning, can enhance students’ intrinsic motivation, task engagement andself-assessment of learning (self-efficacy). The study demonstrates that LinguaFoliocan promote SRL in foreign language learning by the productive use of self-assess-ment, reflection, goal setting and strategy awareness, which are typical to the com-mon portfolio procedures. Similarly, Paris and Paris (2001) have reviewed how theclassroom applications of research on SRL, such as reflection and peer tutoring, canfacilitate writing instruction, and how this body of research can specifically enhancelearning writing in contexts such as those of PA.
Regarding the link between SRL and reflection, White (2005) has proposed that,owing to the hybrid nature of the portfolio content, writing portfolios should not bescored holistically, since this scoring method would eventually diminish its reliabil-ity, especially across different raters (Hamp-Lyons and Condon 1993). Instead, hehas suggested using students’ reflective letters in their portfolios as valid evidence(Phase 2 scoring of portfolios) to evaluate the extent to which they have made anyachievements in the writing development against a well-established goal statement.Grading reflective letters opens a window for teachers to understand how studentsself-monitor and self-regulate their composing behaviours. The emphasis of usingreflective writing in portfolio scoring can also promote development of SRL skills,and enhance the validity of PA by assessing the key processes of writing, namelyreflection during the portfolio process (Huot 2002). Nonetheless, as White (2005,594) argues, the reflective letter is a genre itself, and certainly makes scoring of port-folios more burdensome and challenging, especially for writing teachers.
SRL and portfolio type
In EFL contexts, there has been evidence showing the usefulness of PA to pro-mote student uptake of linguistic and rhetorical features in the writing classroom(Hamp-Lyons and Condon 2000). There are also studies indicating that multi-draftportfolios can enhance learning of writing, including grammatical knowledge,
706 R. Lam
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Mem
oria
l Uni
vers
ity o
f N
ewfo
undl
and]
at 0
2:44
18
July
201
4
vocabulary power and rhetorical awareness, especially in academic writing contexts(Fox and Hartwick 2011; Romova and Andrew 2011). The reasons for suchimprovement can be explained by EFL students having more opportunities to self-monitor their writing development through continuous reflection and revision. How-ever, the learning gains reported mainly depend on the type and function of portfo-lios adopted by individual teachers. For instance, if portfolios carry more evaluativeproperties (assessment portfolios) than pedagogical ones (learning-directed portfo-lios), they are more likely to lose the potential in harnessing student learning of writ-ing in EFL classrooms (Crusan 2010; White 1994). This is particularly so whenteachers grade every draft in the assessment portfolio, and do not emphasise its SRLfeature, which can help students become more reflective about their writing develop-ment.
It has been found that the portfolio system emphasising delayed evaluation canenhance students’ motivation for writing, because it provides them with a low-stakesenvironment (i.e. a feedback-rich classroom) to improve writing (Lam and Lee2010). In their studies, students have reported that they feel less frightened withwriting, despite its cognitively challenging nature, and have developed a positivedisposition towards redrafting. However, some students seem to be preoccupied withthe grading rather than the learning function of PA, given that they prefer receivinggrades on every draft to inform where they are in their writing development. Thisfinding resonates with that of Lam’s (2013a) study, where students from the show-case portfolio system diligently work on two self-selected drafts to display their bestwriting abilities, but ignore the significance of revising and reflecting upon the othertexts in their portfolios. Preoccupation with the evaluative properties rather than thelearning elements, such as SRL and reflection in PA, may create negative washbackon student writing development (e.g. surface learning).
Hirvela and Sweetland (2005) have reported two case studies where the twoinformants experience the selected portfolio approach followed by the comprehen-sive portfolio approach. The findings show that, despite the original design ofpromoting learning-oriented aspects of writing such as SRL, the informants areobliged to complete the portfolio tasks and obtain good grades rather than investtime on self-monitoring their learning progress as EFL writers. Another insightfulfinding from this study is that the informants do not like the confines of the pre-scribed portfolio contents, since they consider these mandatory requirements restrictthem from actively participating in reflective and self-regulated processes. It can beargued that learning-directed portfolios highlighting SRL and reflection can onlymoderately promote students’ learning of writing, owing to their preoccupation withgrades and dislike of prearranged portfolio contents.
SRL and feedback source
As illustrated in Figure 1, it seems that the use of multiple feedback might facilitateself-regulated processes in portfolio-based classrooms. In the assessment literature,there has been evidence to support the importance of exposing students to themixed-feedback approach, namely the use of self-feedback, peer feedback and tea-cher feedback concurrently, to promulgate text improvement as well as SRL in therevising process (cf. Birjandi and Hadidi Tamjid 2012; Taras 2003). However, com-pared to teacher feedback, some EFL students have scepticism about the reliabilityof self-feedback and peer feedback, because they regard writing teachers as more
Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education 707
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Mem
oria
l Uni
vers
ity o
f N
ewfo
undl
and]
at 0
2:44
18
July
201
4
competent professionals to provide written feedback (Lam 2013a; Liu and Carless2006). While teacher feedback is considered useful, Lam (2013a) has argued that itsimpact on revision and long-term writing development remains uncertain, as someEFL students may find it difficult to act upon teacher feedback in improving the dis-course-related concerns of their texts.
In PA, written feedback is generally assumed to be conducive to text revision formost EFL writers; nonetheless, such a linear view of feedback, revision and textimprovement appears to go unexamined and unchallenged. It seems that writingteachers and researchers rarely question whether the giving of feedback in PA isappropriate for subsequent revisions, and the extent to which this teacher commen-tary can promote SRL and eventually benefit long-term writing development.Hamp-Lyons (2006) found that the informant in her study was unable to distinguishwhether the teacher feedback was directive or advisory; her revision efforts werealso underrated since teacher feedback did not precisely provide the student withspecific comments on how to upgrade her multiple drafts. Hamp-Lyons (2006) callsfor more teacher professional training in giving constructive feedback to students.Helping students to internalise feedback commentary and coaching them to be self-regulated in using feedback are other implications emphasised in the study.
Similarly, Richardson (2000) has argued against the usefulness of teacherfeedback in the portfolio approach, since his informants (from Grade 6 to freshman-level students) were resistant to making independent judegment about their writing,and only looked at the ‘correct’ feedback (i.e. linguistic accuracy) for revision. Thestudents’ reliance on teacher commentary can be explained by their compliance withthe teacher’s authority.
Investigating feedback preference, Zhang (1995) discovered that, if students weregiven options, they would tend to incorporate teacher rather than self-feedback andpeer feedback into their drafts. In this connection, it is imperative to emphasise theusefulness of self-feedback and peer feedback in PA, especially when they can facil-itate self-monitoring processes and assist the uptake of SRL skills. The need fortrained self-assessment and peer assessment for quality-enhancing text revision inthe portfolio-based setting has been evident (Andrade and Du 2007; Lam 2010b,2013b). Another means of helping students to become more competent in respond-ing to mixed feedback sources is through the use of collaborative writing (Shehadeh2011) and small-group conferencing during the portfolio process (Atai and Alipour2012). As Hamp-Lyons (2006) maintains, feedback issues remain problematic inportfolio-based classrooms, given that giving, receiving and using feedback arehighly complex activities.
Recommendations for EFL writing contexts
Six recommendations are proposed for EFL writing teachers who are interested inpromoting self-regulation in their classrooms.
Format
There is no one-size-fits-all model that can accommodate all specific EFL classroomsituations, since PA is typically context-specific (Hamp-Lyons and Condon 2000). Itsformat is influenced by the broader sociocultural background, including teachers’beliefs, and instructional and assessment practices (Lam 2013a). Nonetheless, in
708 R. Lam
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Mem
oria
l Uni
vers
ity o
f N
ewfo
undl
and]
at 0
2:44
18
July
201
4
some EFL contexts, the product-based writing approach and an examination-drivenculture are predominant, making no room for the process-oriented portfolio compo-nents, including collection, reflection and selection, to flourish. In these settings, theformat of PA is largely prescriptive and standardised for the sake of administrativeconvenience, but at the expense of learning writing, especially SRL. Training studentsto be self-regulated in learning of writing appears to be challenging, unless the reflec-tive elements (i.e. self-assessment and reflection) can be fully incorporated into theformat of PA for promoting the primacy of self-regulation.
Procedure
PA with a focus on SRL usually takes place in multiple drafting classroom settings,where students can develop greater responsibility in their learning and have moreconstructive dialogues with peers and/or the teacher to negotiate how their writingcan be improved. The shared authority is at the heart of the portfolio procedure, inwhich students can be actively involved in significant decision-making processes,including the portfolio contents and assessment criteria. Such a bottom-up approachto the portfolio procedure can help students to learn the qualities of good writing,and, more importantly, understand how they are evaluated in the portfolio process.This democratic culture of PA is likely to promote self-monitoring processes andindependent learning capacity (Lo 2010; Shohamy 2001).
Function
Huot (2002) has argued that students are generally grade-conscious in EFL writingassessment, despite the effectiveness of teacher commentary. The temporarysuspension of grading in PA can help students redirect their attentions to learningdifferent aspects of writing, namely SRL skills. Alongside its summative function,researchers have already emphasised the importance of the formative function ofPA, which can bring about better text quality, mastery of metacognitive skills andenhanced linguistic knowledge (Chen 2006; Nunes 2004). However, Lam and Lee(2010) have contended that the summative and formative functions of PA are notmutually exclusive, given that the assessment of process elements – e.g. learnerreflection (part of SRL) – and students’ overall effort – not only can balance theassessment of writing products, but also has positive impact on learning writing.
Feedback
To develop SRL skills, students should be encouraged to have wider exposure to mul-tiple feedback sources in PA, as the mixed feedback approach could help them select,evaluate and act upon useful feedback information during the writing process (Lam2013b). Despite the doubts about self-feedback and peer feedback, students, as writ-ers, can engage in dialogues with peers and the teacher to decide whether these feed-back types are appropriate for subsequent revisions. Such self-monitoring processescan also enhance student SRL capacity. While students may not be able to respond toall feedback sources, Birjandi and Hadidi Tamjid (2012) have argued that teacherwritten feedback can facilitate the incorporation of self-feedback and peer feedbackinto their interim and final drafts. To support SRL, writing teachers should make textrevision with multiple feedback a regular feature in the composition classroom.
Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education 709
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Mem
oria
l Uni
vers
ity o
f N
ewfo
undl
and]
at 0
2:44
18
July
201
4
Affect
In PA, there are studies which show that motivation and self-efficacy play crucialroles in promoting SRL (Lam 2013a; Lam and Lee 2010). What makes studentswilling to self-regulate is the outcome of self-monitoring processes. If the outcomeis positive, students are likely to self-monitor their own writing development, suchas mastery of metalanguage of writing (Zimmerman and Schunk 2001). One factorthat determines why some students engage in SRL more productively than the othersis motivation, which is also a significant construct in PA. Without motivation forwriting improvement, students are not eager to spend so much time on revising theirinterim drafts (Aydin 2010). Similarly, if students do not believe they can revise thetexts successfully (i.e. self-efficacy), they may find redrafting overwhelming,especially if they do not have prior experience in coping with different portfoliotasks.
Alignment
PA can serve as a useful tool to weave the teaching and assessment of writingtogether. Teaching writing through portfolios can enhance the validity of writingassessment, given that the process and product of writing are both taught and evalu-ated by classroom teachers, rather than external specialists (Huot 2002). Construc-tive alignment of assessment and teaching of writing can promote teacherprofessional knowledge on the development of classroom-based assessment, with afocus on SRL since this concept is relatively novel to most EFL writing teachers,and its implementation may promote changes in assessment ideology and practicesin a larger EFL context (Hamp-Lyons 2007). Additionally, classroom-based assess-ment featuring learner-centred pedagogies may motivate students to be more self-regulated through continuous evaluation of their work, and enhance writing teachers’assessment literacy through launching their learner-directed portfolio programmes.
Conclusion and implications
The theoretical contribution of this paper is to shed new light on how PA can pro-mote SRL in wider EFL writing settings, by developing a modified conceptualmodel and proposing six practical recommendations for teachers and programmeadministrators who wish to launch PA in their work contexts. In the longer term, thepaper also provides PA researchers and practitioners with an epistemological over-view of how writing portfolios can acculturate a learner-centred paradigm thatencourages active involvement in the assessment process, and how self-regulationcan harness effective learning of writing within portfolio-based classrooms. Unques-tionably, PA is an alternative assessment tool that productively aligns the teachingand assessment of writing, although the divide between process-oriented pedagogy(process writing) and product-based writing assessment (timed essay testing) in EFLsettings remains wide (cf. Lee 2011). To this end, using PA to facilitate SRL in EFLwriting contexts should emphasise learner motivational beliefs, cognitive composingbehaviours and metacognitive knowledge; moreover, how these aspects of PA canbe reflected in the pedagogical approach and writing curriculum (e.g. teaching andassessing SRL) should be considered.
710 R. Lam
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Mem
oria
l Uni
vers
ity o
f N
ewfo
undl
and]
at 0
2:44
18
July
201
4
The other aspect of PA that needs to be addressed is the formative feedback pro-cess that supports student development of SRL. Based on the conceptual model ofSRL (Figure 1), it can be argued that motivation for generating internal feedbackand responding to externally provided feedback is at the heart of SRL, as we cannotexpect students to evaluate their own texts without any incentive (e.g. clear outcomeof text improvement), nor do we assume them to act upon peer and teacher feedbackindependently without systematic guidance and training. The feedback issues in PAwithin a context of SRL continue to be complicated, given that larger sociocontex-tual factors, including instructional practices, learning preferences and specificassessment cultures, may influence the extent to which learners integrate appropriatefeedback information into their revisions.
The way forward to uphold PA with a focus on SRL is the use of electronic port-folios in subject disciplines. According to Yancey (2009), web-based electronic port-folios enable learners to demonstrate their writing abilities in multiple contexts andacross subject domains (i.e. the writing-to-learn approach) through the use of multi-media tools (e.g. weblogs, wiki, and podcast). It can be argued that these web-basedelectronic portfolios can help learners develop their identity as writers and promoteSRL capacity, through which they can monitor their learning process more produc-tively.
Another future direction to promote SRL is to revamp the current portfolio-basedcurriculum by emphasising the reflective elements and systematic instruction of SRLskills, which are more likely to benefit student writing development. Finally, PA canbe viewed as a promising tool for enhancing EFL writers’ self-regulatory capacityand general learning of writing, whereas it is certainly not a panacea to impromptutimed essay examinations. The practicality of PA, owing to heavy paper load and itsvalidation of sole authorship, remains issues to be resolved.
Notes on contributorRicky Lam is an assistant professor in the Department of Education Studies at Hong KongBaptist University. His publications have appeared in ELT Journal, Assessing Writing, TESLCanada Journal, Education 3–13: International Journal of Primary, Elementary and EarlyYears Education and The Asia-Pacific Education Researcher. His research interests areassessment for learning, portfolio assessment and second language writing assessment.
ReferencesAlderson, J. C., and L. Hamp-Lyons. 1996. “TOEFL Preparation Courses: A Study of
Washback.” Language Testing 13 (3): 280–297.Andrade, H., and Y. Du. 2007. “Student Response to Criteria-referenced Self-assessment.”
Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education 32 (2): 159–181.Atai, M. R., and M. Alipour. 2012. “The Effect of the Combination of Small-group
Conferencing and Portfolio Procedure on EFL Students’ Writing Accuracy.” Innovationin Language Learning and Teaching 6 (2): 97–112.
Aydin, S. 2010. “EFL Writers’ Perceptions of Portfolio Keeping.” Assessing Writing 15 (3):194–203.
Bachman, L. F., and A. S. Palmer. 1996. Language Testing in Practice: Designing andDeveloping Useful Language Tests. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Badger, R., and G. White. 2000. “A Process Genre Approach to Teaching Writing.” ELTJournal 54 (2): 153–160.
Belanoff, P., and M. Dickson, eds. 1991. Portfolios: Process and Product. Portsmouth, NH:Boynton/Cook.
Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education 711
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Mem
oria
l Uni
vers
ity o
f N
ewfo
undl
and]
at 0
2:44
18
July
201
4
Birjandi, R., and N. Hadidi Tamjid. 2012. “The Role of Self-, Peer and Teacher Assessmentin Promoting Iranian EFL Learners’ Writing Performance.” Assessment & Evaluation inHigher Education 37 (5): 513–533.
Boekaerts, M. 1999. “Self-regulated Learning: Where We are Today.” International Journalof Educational Research 31 (6): 445–457.
Brown, H. D. 2004. Language Assessment: Principles and Classroom Practices. New York:Longman.
Brown, J. D., and T. Hudson. 1998. “The Alternatives in Language Assessment.” TESOLQuarterly 32 (4): 653–675.
Butler, D. L., and P. H. Winne. 1995. “Feedback and Self-regulated Learning: A TheoreticalSynthesis.” Review of Educational Research 65 (3): 245–281.
Chen, Y. M. 2006. “EFL Instruction and Assessment with Portfolios: A Case Study inTaiwan.” The Asian EFL Journal 8 (1): 69–96.
Coombe, C., and L. Barlow. 2004. “The Reflective Portfolio: Two Case Studies from theUnited Arab Emirates.” English Teaching Forum 42 (1): 18–23.
Cresswell, A. 2000. “Self-monitoring in Student Writing: Developing Learner Responsibility.”ELT Journal 54 (3): 235–244.
Crusan, D. 2010. “Assess Thyself Lest Others Assess Thee.” In Practicing Theory in SecondLanguage Writing, edited by T. Silva and P. K. Matsuda, 245–262. West Lafayette, IN:Parlour Press.
Delett, J. S., S. Barnhardt, and J. A. Kevorkian. 2001. “A Framework for PortfolioAssessment in the Foreign Language Classroom.” Foreign Language Annals 34 (6):559–568.
Fox, J., and P. Hartwick. 2011. “Taking a Diagnostic Turn: Reinventing the Portfolio in EAPClassrooms.” In Classroom-based Language Assessment, edited by D. Tsagari andI. Csépes, 47–61. Frankfurt am Main: Peter Lang.
Gearhart, M., and J. L. Herman. 1998. “Portfolio Assessment: Whose Work is it? Issues inthe Use of Classroom Assignments for Accountability.” Educational Assessment 5 (1):41–55.
Genesee, F., and J. A. Upshur. 1996. Classroom-based Evaluation in Second LanguageEducation. New York: Cambridge University Press.
De Guerrero, M. C. M., and O. S. Villamil. 2000. “Activating the ZPD: Mutual Scaffoldingin L2 Peer Revision.” The Modern Language Journal 84 (1): 51–68.
Hamp-Lyons, L. 1996. “The Challenges of Second-language Writing Assessment.” InAssessment of Writing: Politics, Policies and Practices, edited by E. White, W. Lutz andS. Kamusikiri, 226–240. New York: Modern Language Association of America.
Hamp-Lyons, L. 2003. “Writing Teachers as Assessors of Writing.” In Exploring theDynamics of Second Language Writing, edited by B. Kroll, 162–189. Cambridge:Cambridge University Press.
Hamp-Lyons, L. 2006. “Feedback in Portfolio-based Writing Courses.” In Feedback inSecond Language Writing Contexts and Issues, edited by K. Hyland and F. Hyland,140–161. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Hamp-Lyons, L. 2007. “The Impact of Testing Practices on Teaching: Ideologies andAlternatives.” In International Handbook of English Language Teaching, edited byJ. Cummins and C. Davison, 487–504. Norwell, MA: Springer.
Hamp-Lyons, L., and W. Condon. 1993. “Questioning Assumptions about Portfolio-basedAssessment.” College Composition and Communication 44 (2): 176–190.
Hamp-Lyons, L., and W. Condon. 2000. Assessing the Portfolio: Issues for Research, Theoryand Practice. Cresskill, NJ: Hampton Press.
Hirvela, A., and Y. L. Sweetland. 2005. “Two Case Studies of L2 Writers’ ExperiencesAcross Learning-directed Portfolio Contexts.” Assessing Writing 10 (3): 192–213.
Huot, B. 2002. “Toward a New Discourse of Assessment for the College WritingClassroom.” College English 65 (2): 163–180.
Hyland, F. 2011. “The Language Learning Potential of Form-focused Feedback on Writing:Students’ and Teachers’ Perceptions.” In Learning-to-write and Writing-to-learn in anAdditional Language, edited by R. M. Manchón, 159–180. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Koretz, D. 1998. “Large-scale Portfolio Assessments in the US: Evidence Pertaining to theQuality of Measurement.” Assessment in Education 5 (3): 309–332.
712 R. Lam
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Mem
oria
l Uni
vers
ity o
f N
ewfo
undl
and]
at 0
2:44
18
July
201
4
Lam, R. 2010a. “The Role of Self-assessment in Student’s Writing Portfolios: A ClassroomInvestigation.” TESL Reporter 43 (2): 16–34.
Lam, R. 2010b. “A Peer Review Training Workshop: Coaching Students to give andEvaluate Peer Feedback.” TESL Canada Journal 27 (2): 114–127.
Lam, R. 2013a. “Two Portfolio Systems: EFL Students’ Perceptions of Writing Ability, TextImprovement, and Feedback.” Assessing Writing 18 (2): 132–153.
Lam, R. 2013b. “The Relationship between Assessment Types and Text Revision.” ELTJournal 67 (4): 446–458.
Lam, R., and I. Lee. 2010. “Balancing the Dual Functions of Portfolio Assessment.” ELTJournal 64 (1): 54–64.
Lee, I. 2007. “Feedback in Hong Kong Secondary Writing Classrooms: Assessment forLearning or Assessment of Learning?” Assessing Writing 12 (3): 180–198.
Lee, I. 2008. “Understanding Teachers’ Written Feedback Practices in Hong Kong SecondaryClassrooms.” Journal of Second Language Writing 17 (2): 69–85.
Lee, I. 2011. “Issues and Challenges in Teaching and Learning EFL Writing: The Case ofHong Kong.” In Foreign Language Writing Instruction: Principles and Practices, editedby T. Cimasko and M. Reichelt, 118–137. Anderson, SC: Parlor Press.
Liu, N. F., and D. Carless. 2006. “Peer Feedback: The Learning Element of PeerAssessment.” Teaching in Higher Education 11 (3): 279–290.
Lo, Y. F. 2010. “Implementing Reflective Portfolios for Promoting Autonomous Learningamong EFL College Students in Taiwan.” Language Teaching Research 14 (1): 77–95.
Nicol, D., and D. Macfarlane-Dick. 2006. “Formative Assessment and Self-regulatedLearning: A Model and Seven Principles of Good Feedback Practice.” Studies in HigherEducation 31 (2): 199–218.
Nunes, A. 2004. “Portfolios in the EFL Classroom: Disclosing an Informed Practice.” ELTJournal 58 (4): 327–335.
Paris, S. G., J. P. Byrnes, and A. H. Paris. 2001. “Constructing Theories, Identities, andActions of Self-regulated Learners.” In Self-regulated Learning and AcademicAchievement, 2nd ed., edited by B. Zimmerman and D. Schunk, 239–272. Mahwah, NJ:Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Paris, S. G., and A. H. Paris. 2001. “Classroom Applications of Research on Self-regulatedLearning.” Educational Psychologist 36 (2): 89–101.
Park, G. 2013. “Writing is a Way of Knowing: Writing and Identity.” ELT Journal 67 (3):336–345.
Qi, L. X. 2007. “Is Testing an Efficient Agent for Pedagogical Change? Examining theIntended Washback of the Writing Task in a High-stakes English Test in China.”Assessment in Education 14 (1): 51–74.
Richardson, S. 2000. “Students’ Conditioned Response to Teachers’ Response: PortfolioProponents, Take Note!” Assessing Writing 7 (2): 117–141.
Romova, Z., and M. Andrew. 2011. “Teaching and Assessing Academic Writing via thePortfolio: Benefits for Learners of English as an Additional Language.” Assessing Writing16 (2): 111–122.
Sengupta, S. 1998. “From Text Revision to Text Improvement: A Story of Secondary SchoolComposition.” RELC Journal 29 (1): 110–137.
Sengupta, S. 2000. “An Investigation into the Effects of Revision Strategy Instruction on L2Secondary School Learners.” System 28 (1): 97–113.
Shehadeh, A. 2011. “Effects and Student Perceptions of Collaborative Writing in L2.”Journal of Second Language Writing 20 (4): 286–305.
Shohamy, E. 2001. The Power of Tests: A Critical Perspective on the Uses of LanguageTests. Harlow: Longman.
Song, B., and B. August. 2002. “Using Portfolios to Assess the Writing of ESL Students: APowerful Alternative?” Journal of Second Language Writing 11 (1): 49–72.
Taras, M. 2003. “To Feedback or not to Feedback in Student Self-assessment.” Assessment &Evaluation in Higher Education 28 (5): 549–565.
Tsui, A. B. M., and M. Ng. 2000. “Do Secondary L2 Writers Benefit from Peer Comments?”Journal of Second Language Writing 9 (2): 147–170.
Weigle, S. C. 2002. Assessing Writing. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education 713
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Mem
oria
l Uni
vers
ity o
f N
ewfo
undl
and]
at 0
2:44
18
July
201
4
Weigle, S. C. 2007. “Teaching Writing Teachers about Assessment.” Journal of SecondLanguage Writing 16 (3): 194–209.
White, E. M. 1994. Teaching and Assessing Writing: Recent Advances in Understanding,Evaluating and Improving Student Performance. 2nd ed. San Francisco, CA:Jossey-Bass.
White, E. M. 2005. “The Scoring of Writing Portfolios: Phase 2.” College Composition andCommunication 56 (4): 581–599.
Willard-Traub, M., E. Decker, R. Reed, and J. Johnston. 1999. “The Development ofLarge-scale Portfolio Placement Assessment at the University of Michigan: 1992-1998.”Assessing Writing 6 (1): 41–84.
Yancey, K. B. 2009. “Electronic Portfolios a Decade into the Twenty-first Century: What weKnow, What we Need to Know.” Peer Review 11 (1): 28–33.
Zhang, S. 1995. “Re-examining the Affective Advantages of Peer Feedback in the ESLWriting Class.” Journal of Second Language Writing 4 (3): 209–222.
Ziegler, N. A., and A. J. Moeller. 2012. “Increasing Self-regulated Learning Through theLinguaFolio.” Foreign Language Annals 45 (3): 330–348.
Zimmerman, B., and D. H. Schunk, eds. 2001. Self-regulated Learning and AcademicAchievement: Theoretical Perspectives. 2nd ed. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence ErlbaumAssociates.
